ArticleJournal of experimental botany2010
Short flashes and continuous light have similar photoinhibitory efficiency in intact leaves.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.