ArticlePhotosynthesis research2011
Calculation of chromophore excited state energy shifts in response to molecular dynamics of pigment-protein complexes.
Article in Photosynthesis research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thermal site energy fluctuations in photosystem I: new insights from MD/QM/MM calculations.Chemical science · 2023Article
- Molecular dynamics simulations in photosynthesis.Photosynthesis research · 2020Review
- Photosystem II does not possess a simple excitation energy funnel: time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy meets theory.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2013Article
- Excited state dynamics in photosynthetic reaction center and light harvesting complex 1.The Journal of chemical physics · 2012Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absorption and energy transfer properties of photosynthetic pigments are strongly influenced by their local environment or "site." Local electrostatic fields vary in time with protein and chromophore molecular movement and thus transiently influence the excited state transition properties of individual chromophores. Site-specific information is experimentally inaccessible in many light-harvesting pigment-proteins due to multiple chromophores with overlapping spectra. Full quantum mechanical calculations of each chromophores excited state properties are too computationally demanding to efficiently calculate the changing excitation energies along a molecular dynamics trajectory in a pigment-protein complex. A simplified calculation of electrostatic interactions with each chromophores ground to excited state transition, the so-called charge density coupling (CDC) for site energy, CDC, has previously been developed to address this problem. We compared CDC to more rigorous quantum chemical calculations to determine its accuracy in computing excited state energy shifts and their fluctuations within a molecular dynamics simulation of the bacteriochlorophyll containing light-harvesting Fenna-Mathews-Olson (FMO) protein. In most cases CDC calculations differed from quantum mechanical (QM) calculations in predicting both excited state energy and its fluctuations. The discrepancies arose from the inability of CDC to account for the differing effects of charge on ground and excited state electron orbitals. Results of our study show that QM calculations are indispensible for site energy computations and the quantification of contributions from different parts of the system to the overall site energy shift. We suggest an extension of QM/MM methodology of site energy shift calculations capable of accounting for long-range electrostatic potential contributions from the whole system, including solvent and ions.
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.