ArticlePloS one2017
Localization of (photo)respiration and CO2 re-assimilation in tomato leaves investigated with a reaction-diffusion model.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward mechanistic modeling and rational engineering of plant respiration.Plant physiology · 2023Article
- Review
- In silico study of the role of cell growth factors in photosynthesis using a virtual leaf tissue generator coupled to a microscale photosynthesis gas exchange model.Journal of experimental botany · 2020Article
- Using a reaction-diffusion model to estimate day respiration and reassimilation of (photo)respired COThe New phytologist · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rate of photosynthesis depends on the CO2 partial pressure near Rubisco, Cc, which is commonly calculated by models using the overall mesophyll resistance. Such models do not explain the difference between the CO2 level in the intercellular air space and Cc mechanistically. This problem can be overcome by reaction-diffusion models for CO2 transport, production and fixation in leaves. However, most reaction-diffusion models are complex and unattractive for procedures that require a large number of runs, like parameter optimisation. This study provides a simpler reaction-diffusion model. It is parameterized by both leaf physiological and leaf anatomical data. The anatomical data consisted of the thickness of the cell wall, cytosol and stroma, and the area ratios of mesophyll exposed to the intercellular air space to leaf surfaces and exposed chloroplast to exposed mesophyll surfaces. The model was used directly to estimate photosynthetic parameters from a subset of the measured light and CO2 response curves; the remaining data were used for validation. The model predicted light and CO2 response curves reasonably well for 15 days old tomato (cv. Admiro) leaves, if (photo)respiratory CO2 release was assumed to take place in the inner cytosol or in the gaps between the chloroplasts. The model was also used to calculate the fraction of CO2 produced by (photo)respiration that is re-assimilated in the stroma, and this fraction ranged from 56 to 76%. In future research, the model should be further validated to better understand how the re-assimilation of (photo)respired CO2 is affected by environmental conditions and physiological parameters.
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.