Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20643811›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2010

Short flashes and continuous light have similar photoinhibitory efficiency in intact leaves.

Päivi Sarvikas, Marja Hakala-Yatkin, Sirin Dönmez, Esa Tyystjärvi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Päivi SarvikasDepartment of Biochemistry and Food Chemistry, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland.
Marja Hakala-Yatkin
Sirin Dönmez
Esa Tyystjärvi
University of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lincomycin-treated pumpkin leaves were illuminated with either continuous light or saturating single-turnover xenon flashes to study the dependence of photoinactivation of photosystem II (PSII) on the mode of delivery of light. The flash energy and the time interval between the flashes were varied between the experiments, and photoinactivation was measured with oxygen evolution and the ratio of variable to maximum fluorescence (F(v)/F(m)). The photoinhibitory efficiency of saturating xenon flashes was found to be directly proportional to flash energy and independent of the time interval between the flashes. These findings indicate that a low-light-specific mechanism, based on charge recombination between PSII electron acceptors and the oxygen-evolving complex, is not the main cause of photoinactivation caused by short flashes in vivo. Furthermore, the relationship between the rate constant of photoinactivation and photon flux density was similar for flashes and continuous light when F(v)/F(m) was used to quantify photoinactivation, suggesting that continuous-light photoinactivation has a mechanism in which the quantum yield does not depend on the mode of delivery of light. A similar quantum yield of photoinhibition for flashes and continuous light is compatible with the manganese-based photoinhibition mechanism and with mechanisms in which singlet oxygen, produced via a direct photosensitization reaction, is the agent of damage. However, the classical acceptor-side and donor-side mechanisms do not predict a similar quantum yield for flashes and continuous light.

Indexed as

LightBiosensing TechniquesChloroplastsCucurbitaLincomycinOxygenPhotochemical ProcessesPhotonsPlant LeavesThermodynamicsTime FactorsXenonLincomycinOxygenXenon

Identifiers

PMID20643811
PMCPMC2955740
OpenAlexW2166505457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.