A comment on the call to throw away your fluorescence induction apparatus.
A comment on the call to throw away your fluorescence induction apparatus.
复制标题
对扔掉荧光感应装置的呼吁的评论。
DOI：
10.1016/s0006-3495(94)80868-9
复制
发表时间：
1994
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
D. Mauzerall
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Falkowski;Z. Kolber;D. Mauzerall
最近，Trissl et al.（1993）提出，理论模型计算不支持解释荧光诱导曲线所用的一些基本假设。他们的结果促使Holzwarth（1993）提出，尽管”一次性”荧光诱导设备可能还不成熟，但迫切需要开发新的分析方法，为荧光数据的解释提供更坚实的基础。虽然对荧光诱导现象的解释可能很复杂，但我们认为这些作者得出的结论被夸大了。此外，存在用于导出所需参数的替代（和更好的）荧光技术，但未被广泛使用（并且被Trissl等人忽视）。（1993）和Holzwarth（1993））。在这封信中，我们：（a）简要回顾了Trissl等人提出的与PSII中可变荧光与光化学量子产率相关的明显问题，（B）将Trissl等人提出的分析与基于”激子-自由基对平衡模型”的蒙特-卡罗模拟进行了比较，（c）评论了Holzwarth关于修改荧光诱导技术和/或开发新的分析方法的呼吁。本文首先研究了PSII（4Dp）中可变荧光（Fv）、最大荧光产额（Fm）与光化学量子产额之间的关系。Trissl等人正确地指出，如果Fv/Fm是光化学量子产率（减少的量子数与吸收的光子数之比）的定量量度，那么[（Fv/Fm）/（Dp）]应该是常数。使用来自荧光寿命的三个公开研究的数据（Schatz等人，1988; Leibl等人，1989; Roelofs等人，1992年），他们计算出三个数据集的（Fv/Fm）/kFp比值分别为0.653、0.367和0.696。然而，检查表1中的数据，发现了一个简单的算术错误;报告的数字是Fv/Fm和4 bp的乘积，而不是比值。正确的值实际上是1.02、1.02和0.88。这些是相对恒定的。三个实验数据集的激发转移的分子时间常数相差约5倍，Fv和Fa（荧光诱导曲线上的互补面积）相差2倍。因此，我们问，这三个数据集之间的差异是否会影响他们的结论。一种可能性是，
Recently, Trissl et al.(1993) suggested that some basic as-sumptions used in the interpretation of fluorescence induc-tion curves are not supported by theoretical model calcula-tions. Their results prompted Holzwarth (1993) to suggest that, although it may be prematureto" throwaway" fluorescence induction equipment, there is an urgent need to de-velop new analyses methods which will provide a firmer basis for the interpretation of fluorescence data. While the interpretation of fluorescence induction phenomena may well be complex, we believe that the conclusions drawn by these authors are exaggerated. Moreover, alternative (and better) fluorescence techniques for deriving the desired parameters exist, but are not widely used (and were overlooked by both Trissl et al.(1993) and Holzwarth (1993)). In this letter we:(a) briefly review the apparent problems posed by Trissl et al. inrelating variable fluorescence to the quantum yield of photochemistry in PSII,(b) compare the analyses presented by Trissl et al. with Monte-Carlo simulations based on their" exciton-radical pair equilibrium model," and (c) comment on Holzwarth's call to revise the fluorescence in-duction technique and/or to develop new analysis methods. We first consider therelationship between variable fluo-rescence (Fv), the maximum fluorescence yield (Fm), and the quantum yield of photochemistry in PSII (4Dp). Trissl et al. correctly point out that ifFv/Fm is a quantitative measure of the quantum yield of photochemistry (the ratio of Qareduced to photons absorbed), then [(Fv/Fm)/(Dp] should be constant. Using data from three published studies of fluorescence lifetimes (Schatz et al., 1988; Leibl et al., 1989; Roelofs et al., 1992), they calculated that the ratios of (Fv/Fm)/kFp for the three data sets are 0.653, 0.367, and 0.696, respectively. In-spection of the data in their Table 1, however, reveals a simple arithmetical mistake; the reported numbers are the products ofFv/Fm and 4bp, not the ratios. The correct values are in fact 1.02, 1.02, and 0.88. These are relatively constant. The three experimental data sets have approximately a 5-fold difference in the molecular time constants of excita-tion transfer, and twofold differences in both Fv and Fa (the complementary area over the fluorescence induction curve). We asked, therefore, if the variability between the three data sets affected their conclusions. One possibility is that, in all