| Literature DB >> 32814810 |
Péter Maróti1, István A Kovács2,3,4, Mariann Kis5, James L Smart6, Ferenc Iglói3,7.
Abstract
Antenna systems serve to absorb light and to transmit excitation energy to the reaction center (RC) in photosynthetic organisms. As the emitted (bacterio)Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32814810 PMCID: PMC7438532 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70966-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Kinetics of fluorescence yield () and absorption changes of oxidized dimer (P+) during induction and relaxation of whole cells of cytochrome c2 less mutant of purple photosynthetic bacterium Rba. sphaeroides. Both and P+ are normalized to their maximum values.
Figure 2Double reciprocal representations of the fluorescence yield () and oxidized dimer (P+) during induction and relaxation. The plots demonstrate the deviation from the Joliot model that predicts straight lines (curved in the logarithmic scale).
Figure 3Double reciprocal plots of the fluorescence yield () and complementary area (C) above the fluorescence rise (induction) or below the fluorescence drop (relaxation), respectively. Systematic deviations can be observed from straight lines predicted by the Joliot model. Note, that the straight lines are curved in logarithmic scales.
Figure 4Fluorescence yield () as a function of closure of the reaction centers (P+) during induction and relaxation phases obtained by comparison of the kinetics of fluorescence with those of the oxidised dimer by elimination of the time. The cells were harvested in the late stationary phase of their growth (3 days after inoculation). The measured points were formally approximated by curves derived from the Joliot model with different p values indicated. The straight line corresponds to , i.e. no connection between the PSUs. The hysteresis (the difference between induction and relaxation) is relatively modest.
Figure 5Demonstration of large hysteresis due to the increased difference between the kinetics of fluorescence yield and closure of the PSU during induction and relaxation. The bacteria were harvested in the early phase of their growth (24 h after inoculation). Otherwise the experimental conditions and evaluation of the data were the same as in Fig. 4.
Figure 6Fluorescence yield as a function of the fraction of closed RCs calculated during relaxation (LMF calculation and MC simulations) and during induction (CMF calculation and MC simulations) at a hopping probability for (main panel) and (inset). In both cases the best fit (with p) of the Joliot theory, as well as the result with a fixed is also presented.
Figure 7Time-dependence of the fluorescence yield calculated by the LMF approximation for various values of n at a hopping probability . The result of the Joliot theory with the same p is shown for comparison. Inset: Time-dependence of the fluorescence yield in the Joliot model for different values of the hopping probability.
Figure 8Typical cluster structures of RCs on a square lattice at an occupation probability, , slightly above the site-percolation threshold. Left panel: uncorrelated percolation, corresponding to the structure during relaxation with . Middle panel: during induction with and . Right panel: during induction with and . Sites with the same colour represent connected clusters of closed RCs.
Figure 9Dynamics of the order-parameter, x(t), and the fluorescence yield, , calculated for a hopping probability and for . Results of the LMF and CMF approaches are compared with MC simulations during induction. Inset: Connected nearest-neighbour correlation function as a function of x for and for . The CMF calculations perfectly overlap with the results of MC simulations.
Figure 11Average number of exciton steps as a function of the fraction of closed RCs at a hopping probability calculated with the CMF approach (full line) and with the LMF approach (dashed line), for different maximal number of steps, n. With dotted line result of the Joliot-theory () is presented. Inset: absorption cross section as a function of the fraction of closed RCs.
Basic ingredients involved in the different approaches.
| Joliot-theory | LMF | CMF | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Density of closed RCs | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Dynamics of | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Lattice topology | No | Yes | Yes |
| Multiple visits of sites | No | Yes | Yes |
| Bunching of closed RCs | No | No | Yes |
| Hysteresis | No | No | Yes |
Figure 10k-site correlations versus fraction of closed RCs calculated in the different approaches at a hopping probability . Dotted line: Joliot-theory, dashed line: LMF approach, full line: CMF approach.
List of , see text. These parameters appear as the weights of the polynomials in Eqs. (8) and (12).
| k | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 30 | 42 | 66 | 90 | |
| 4 | 9 | 26 | 72 | 161 | 338 | 690 | 1317 | ||
| 5 | 25 | 94 | 319 | 890 | 2335 | 5668 | |||
| 6 | 71 | 318 | 1256 | 4066 | 12,325 | ||||
| 7 | 195 | 1026 | 4515 | 16,434 | |||||
| 8 | 543 | 3232 | 15,692 | ||||||
| 9 | 1479 | 9942 | |||||||
| 10 | 4067 |