ArticleBiochemistry2008
The ability of actinic light to modify the bacteriorhodopsin photocycle revisited: heterogeneity vs photocooperativity.
Article in Biochemistry, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single molecule kinetics of bacteriorhodopsin by HS-AFM.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Infrared and visible absolute and difference spectra of bacteriorhodopsin photocycle intermediates.Applied spectroscopy · 2011Article
- Electrogenic proton-pumping capabilities of the m-fast and m-slow photocycles of bacteriorhodopsin.Biochemistry · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 1995, evidence both for photocooperativity and for heterogeneity as possible explanations for the ability of actinic light to modify the kinetics and pathways of the bacteriorhodopsin (BR) photocycle was reviewed ( Shrager, R. I., Hendler, R. W., and Bose, S. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 229, 589-595 ). Because both concepts could be successfully modeled to experimental data and there was suggestive published evidence for both, it was concluded that both photocooperativity and heterogeneity may be involved in the adaptation of the BR photocycle to different levels of actinic light. Since that time, more information has become available and it seemed appropriate to revisit the original question. In addition to the traditional models based on all intermediates in strict linear sequences, we have considered both homogeneous and heterogeneous models with branches. It is concluded that an explanation based on heterogeneity is more likely to be the true basis for the variation of the properties of the photocycle caused by changes in actinic light intensity. On the basis of new information presented here, it seems that a heterogeneous branched model is more likely than one with separate linear sequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.