| Literature DB >> 26466660 |
John A Raven1, John Beardall2.
Abstract
It is difficult to distinguish influx and efflux of inorganic C in photosynthesizing tissues; this article examines what is known and where there are gaps in knowledge. Irreversible decarboxylases produce CO2, and CO2 is the substrate/product of enzymes that act as carboxylases and decarboxylases. Some irreversible carboxylases use CO2; others use HCO3(-). The relative role of permeation through the lipid bilayer versus movement through CO2-selective membrane proteins in the downhill, non-energized, movement of CO2 is not clear. Passive permeation explains most CO2 entry, including terrestrial and aquatic organisms with C3 physiology and biochemistry, terrestrial C4 plants and all crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) plants, as well as being part of some mechanisms of HCO3(-) use in CO2 concentrating mechanism (CCM) function, although further work is needed to test the mechanism in some cases. However, there is some evidence of active CO2 influx at the plasmalemma of algae. HCO3(-) active influx at the plasmalemma underlies all cyanobacterial and some algal CCMs. HCO3(-) can also enter some algal chloroplasts, probably as part of a CCM. The high intracellular CO2 and HCO3(-) pools consequent upon CCMs result in leakage involving CO2, and occasionally HCO3(-). Leakage from cyanobacterial and microalgal CCMs involves up to half, but sometimes more, of the gross inorganic C entering in the CCM; leakage from terrestrial C4 plants is lower in most environments. Little is known of leakage from other organisms with CCMs, though given the leakage better-examined organisms, leakage occurs and increases the energetic cost of net carbon assimilation.Entities:
Keywords: Aquaporins; C4; bicarbonate; carbon concentrating mechanisms; carbon dioxide; crassulacean acid metabolism; leakage; lipid bilayer; permeability.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26466660 PMCID: PMC4682431 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Permeability coefficient for CO2 in planar lipid bilayers and plasmalemma vesicles, corrected as far as possible for limitation by aqueous diffusion boundary layers
Also shown are the modelled ‘optimum’ or ‘maximum’ (for functioning in the CCM) CO2 permeability of the wall of cyanobacterial carboxysomes and/or the estimated CO2 permeability of the wall of cyanobacterial carboxysomes.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Planar lipid bilayer composed of 1:1 egg lecithin:cholesterol. 22–24 °C | 3.5±0.4.10–3 (standard error) | Gutknecht |
| Plasmalemma vesicles of | 0.76±0.03–1.49±0.2.10–5 (± standard error; low CO2-grown cells) | Sültemeyer and Rinast (1996) |
| Planar lipid bilayer composed of (i) pure diphytanoyl-phosphatidyl choline (ii) 3:2:1 cholesterol: diphytanoyl-phosphatidyl choline: egg sphingomyelin, and (iii) mixture of lipids mimicking the red cell plasmalemma.? °C | ≥3.2±1.6.10–2(not clear what ± refers to; ≥3.2 refers to all three membrane | Missner |
| Estimate of upper limit on CO2 permeability of cyanobacterial carboxysome wall consistent with CCM function. | 10–7–2.5.10–6 | Reinhold et al. (1987, 1991) |
| Estimate of CO2 permeability of the carboxysome wall of | 2.2.10–7 (no estimates of error given) | Salon |
| Estimate of CO2 permeability of the carboxysome wall in | 2.8±0.8.10–7 (standard error, | McGinn |
| Estimate of ‘optimal’ CO2 permeability of cyanobacterial carboxysome wall from CCM model. | 10–5 | Mangan and Brenner (2014) |
| CO2 permeability of carboxysome wall in | 10–7 | Hopkinson |
| Estimate of CO2 permeability of the carboxysome wall in | 10–6 | Hopkinson |
Method for all three data sets involves measurement of inorganic carbon fluxes, expressed as CO2, under a known CO2 concentration difference across the membrane across planar membrane bilayers (Gutknecht et al., 1997; Missner et al., 2008) or plasmalemma vesicles of Chlamydomonas (Sültemeyer and Rinast, 1996). Carbonic anhydrase was added to both sides of the membrane to minimize the gradient of CO2 across the aqueous diffusion boundary layers on each side of the membrane.
Permeability coefficient (‘mesophyll conductance’) for CO2 entry for the pathway from the outside of the external aqueous diffusion boundary layer to Rubisco in C3 biochemistry
No data seem to be available for the corresponding CO2 movement to PEPc in C4 or CAM biochemistry.
| Category of plant: flowering plant, hornwort, or liverwort | Mesophyll permeability m s–1 |
|---|---|
| Herbaceous dicotyledonous flowering plant | 2.16±0.32.10–4 (standard error, |
| Herbaceous monocotyledonous flowering plant | 2.24±0.29.10–4 (standard error, |
| Woody deciduous dicotyledonous flowering plant | 1.05±0.12.10–4 (standard error, |
| Woody evergreen dicotyledonous flowering plant | 0.85±0.08.10–4 (standard error, |
| Hornwort | 1.75.10–4 (no statistics provided by Meyer |
| Unventilated liverwort | 1.90±0.15.10–4 (standard deviation, |
| Ventilated liverwort | 0.80±0.04.10–4 (standard deviation, |
Conversion of photosynthetic rates for the plants on a projected leaf area basis (from Table 1 of Warren, 2008) to the area of mesophyll cells exposed to the intercellular gas space uses a ratio of 25 m2 m2 mesophyll cells exposed to the intercellular gas space projected leaf area (from pp. 380–381of Nobel, 2005). Conversion of the difference in CO2 concentration between the outside of the cell wall to the chloroplast stroma expressed in terms of atmospheric mol fraction (μmol CO2 mol–1 total atmospheric gas) from Table 1 of Warren (2008) to mmol CO2 dissolved in each m3 of leaf water uses a conversion factor of 1 mmol CO2 m–3 dissolved in leaf water for each 20.4 μmol CO2 mol–1 total atmospheric gas (from pp. 377 and 384 of Nobel, 2005). For a ventilated thalloid liverwort the ratio of 9 m2 mesophyll cells exposed to the intercellular gas space per m2 projected thallus area (Green and Snelgar, 1982), and for a hornwort or and unventilated liverwort thallus the ratio is 1 (Green and Snelgar, 1982), with other data from Meyer et al. (2008).
Fig. 1.A schematic model for inorganic carbon transport, and CO2 accumulation and leakage in cyanobacteria. Low affinity transport systems are shown in grey and high affinity systems are shown in black, and are found at the plasmalemma and/or thylakoid membrane. Transporters whose characteristics are unknown are shown in white. Redrawn after Fig. 1 of Price , Badger and Price (2003), and Giordano . (Price . Modes of active inorganic carbon uptake in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC7942. Functional Plant Biology 29, 131–149. CSIRO PUBLISHING (http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/102/paper/PP01229.htm). (Badger and Price 2003. CO2 concentrating mechanism in cyanobacteria: molecular components, their diversity and evolution. Journal of Experimental Botany 54, 609–622). (Giordano . CO2 concentrating mechanisms in algae: mechanisms, environmental modulation, and evolution. Annual Review of Plant Biology 6, 99–131).
Fig. 2.A schematic model for inorganic carbon transport, and CO2 accumulation and leakage in eukaryotic algal cells. The model incorporates the possibilities for DIC transport at the plasmalemma and/or chloroplast envelope as well as a putative C4-like mechanism. Active transport processes (shown by the shaded boxes) can be of CO2 or HCO3−. No attempt has been made to show the roles of the various internal CAs in the different compartments. For this the reader is referred to Giordano . Redrawn after Giordano . CO2 concentrating mechanisms in algae: mechanisms, environmental modulation, and evolution. Annual Review of Plant Biology 6, 99–131.
Leakage of inorganic C from CCMs as a fraction of the inorganic C pumped into the intracellular pool for in terrestrial C4 flowering plants, hornworts, eukaryotic algae, and cyanobacteria
Values are from Supplementary Table S1 except for C4 terrestrial flowering plants where the more detailed data in Table 1 of Kromdijk et al. (2014) was used. For C3 plants, leakage of CO2 from photorespiration is <0.2 of gross CO2 fixation (see text).
| Organism | Range of CO2 leakage estimates as a fraction of gross CO2 entry, from | Mean leakage from estimates in |
|---|---|---|
| C4 terrestrial flowering plants | –0.03–0.70 | 0.260±0.108 (standard deviation, |
| Hornworts with CCMs | 0.170, 0.304, 0.31 | 0.263±0.066 (standard |
| Eukaryotic algae | 0.01–0.80 | 0.36±0.16 (standard |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.09–0.78 | 0.407±0.214 (standard |
1Calculated from sum of means of ranges in Table 1 of Kromdijk et al. (2014), using data from all methods of estimation. Where values are given for more than one irradiance the value from the highest irradiance was used. The theroretically impossible value of –0.03 of leakage obtained by the quantum yield methods was retained rather than being rounded to zero; this made no difference to the outcome.
2Estimates from C isotope method, acknowledging that the pyrenoid-based CCM in hornworts may be subject to over-estimation as a result of internal recycling discussed for eukaryotic algae (see Wang and Spalding, 2014).
3Estimates from the C isotope method for leakage from a cyanobacterium in excess of 1.0 are theoretically impossible; these and other very high values obtained by this method for the cyanobacteria, are not given here. Possible reasons for these very high values are discussed by Eichner et al. (2015). For eukaryotic algae an analogous over-estimate of leakage using the C isotope method to that suggested for cyanobacteria could also occur, at least in Chlamydomonas (Wang and Spalding, 2014), but in the case of the eukaryotic algae none of the leakage estimates from using the C isotope method in Supplementary Table S1 are higher than the highest estimates from the MIMS method.
Permeability coefficients, on a cell surface area basis, for CO2 and HCO3 – determined for efflux of inorganic carbon from the intracellular pool accumulated by CCMs in cyanobacteria and for the bundle sheath of C4 plants
| Organism | Inorganic carbon | Permeability coefficient | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| CO2 | 10–7 m s–1 (no estimates of errors given) | Badger |
|
| CO2 | 2.49±0.13.10–8 m s–1 (standard error, n=4) –3.36±0.14.10–8 m s–1 (standard error, | Salon |
|
| HCO3 - | 1.47±0.23.10–9 m s–1 (standard error, n = 7) –1.84±0.17.10–9 m s–1 (standard error, | Salon |
|
| CO2 | 9.8±1.5.10–8 m s–1 (standard error, | McGinn |
|
| HCO3 − | 7.6±0.9.10–9 m s–1 (standard error, | McGinn |
| C4 terrestrial flowering plants (5 species) | CO2 | 1.6–4.5.10–6 m s–1 (no estimates of errors given) | Furbank |
1The quantification of the efflux of HCO3 – is less direct than that of CO2 efflux. As mentioned by Salon et al. (1996b), the permeability coefficient for HCO3 – is a minimal value since the inside-negative electrical potential difference across the plasmalemma is not accounted for in the calculations.