Chapter Review

KEY TERMS

Terms in bold are defined in the glossary.

Problems

DATA ANALYSIS PROBLEM
  • 29. Photophosphorylation: Discovery, Rejection, and Rediscovery In the 1930s and 1940s, researchers were beginning to make progress toward understanding the mechanism of photosynthesis. At the time, the role of “energy-rich phosphate bonds” (today, “ATP”) in glycolysis and cellular respiration was just becoming known. There were many theories about the mechanism of photosynthesis, especially about the role of light. This problem focuses on what was then called the “primary photochemical process” — that is, on what, exactly, the energy from captured light produces in the photosynthetic cell. Interestingly, one important part of the modern model of photosynthesis was proposed early on, only to be rejected, ignored for several years, then finally revived and accepted.

    In 1944, Emerson, Stauffer, and Umbreit proposed that “the function of light energy in photosynthesis is the formation of ‘energy-rich’ phosphate bonds” (p. 107). In their model (hereafter, the “Emerson model”), the free energy necessary to drive both CO2CO Subscript 2 fixation and reduction came from these “energy-rich phosphate bonds” (i.e., ATP), produced as a result of light absorption by a chlorophyll-containing protein.

    This model was explicitly rejected by Rabinowitch (1945). After summarizing Emerson and coauthors’ findings, Rabinowitch stated: “Until more positive evidence is provided, we are inclined to consider as more convincing a general argument against this hypothesis, which can be derived from energy considerations. Photosynthesis is eminently a problem of energy accumulation. What good can be served, then, by converting light quanta (even those of red light, which amount to about 43 kcal per Einstein) into ‘phosphate quanta’ of only 10 kcal per mole? This appears to be a start in the wrong direction — toward dissipation rather than toward accumulation of energy” (p. 228). This argument, along with other evidence, led to abandonment of the Emerson model until the 1950s, when it was found to be correct — albeit in a modified form.

    For each piece of information from Emerson and coauthors’ article presented in (a) through (d), answer the following three questions:

    1. How does this information support the Emerson model, in which light energy is used directly by chlorophyll to make ATP, and the ATP then provides the energy to drive CO2CO Subscript 2 fixation and reduction?

    2. How would Rabinowitch explain this information, based on his model (and most other models of the day), in which light energy is used directly by chlorophyll to make reducing compounds? Rabinowitch wrote: “Theoretically, there is no reason why all electronic energy contained in molecules excited by the absorption of light should not be available for oxidation-reduction” (p. 152). In this model, the reducing compounds are then used to fix and reduce CO2CO Subscript 2, and the energy for these reactions comes from the large amounts of free energy released by the reduction reactions.

    3. How is this information explained by our modern understanding of photosynthesis?

    1. Chlorophyll contains a Mg2+Mg Superscript 2 plus ion, which is known to be an essential cofactor for many enzymes that catalyze phosphorylation and dephosphorylation reactions.

    2. A crude “chlorophyll protein” isolated from photo-synthetic cells showed phosphorylating activity.

    3. The phosphorylating activity of the “chlorophyll protein” was inhibited by light.

    4. The levels of several different phosphorylated compounds in photosynthetic cells changed dramatically in response to light exposure. (Emerson and coworkers were not able to identify the specific compounds involved.)

      As it turned out, the Emerson and Rabinowitch models were both partly correct and partly incorrect.

    5. Explain how the two models relate to our current model of photosynthesis.

      In his rejection of the Emerson model, Rabinowitch went on to say: “The difficulty of the phosphate storage theory appears most clearly when one considers the fact that, in weak light, eight or ten quanta of light are sufficient to reduce one molecule of carbon dioxide. If each quantum should produce one molecule of high-energy phosphate, the accumulated energy would be only 80–100 kcal per Einstein — while photosynthesis requires at least 112 kcal per mole, and probably more, because of losses in irreversible partial reactions” (p. 228).

    6. How does Rabinowitch’s value of 8 to 10 photons per molecule of CO2CO Subscript 2 reduced compare with the value accepted today?

    7. How would you rebut Rabinowitch’s argument, based on our current knowledge about photosynthesis?

References