User:Pukar Baniya/sandbox 1
From Proteopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Reaction rate and specificity== | == Reaction rate and specificity== | ||
While the significance of rubisco is exceptionally high, it is very inefficient. Relative to other enzymes, rubisco catalyzes reactions at a relatively sluggish rate. On average, rubisco catalyzes three carbon dioxide molecules per second. While usually, an enzyme can process up to thousand molecules per second. To compensate for its speed, plants build up vast amounts of rubisco. Most of the chloroplast consists of this protein. This high concentration of the enzyme in every photosynthetic plant has awarded rubisco for being the most abundant enzyme on earth. | While the significance of rubisco is exceptionally high, it is very inefficient. Relative to other enzymes, rubisco catalyzes reactions at a relatively sluggish rate. On average, rubisco catalyzes three carbon dioxide molecules per second. While usually, an enzyme can process up to thousand molecules per second. To compensate for its speed, plants build up vast amounts of rubisco. Most of the chloroplast consists of this protein. This high concentration of the enzyme in every photosynthetic plant has awarded rubisco for being the most abundant enzyme on earth. | ||
| - | The <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">active site of rubisco</scene> is meant to bind carbon oxide as its substrate. However, due to similar chemical properties and size, oxygen molecules can also easily fit their active site. This ability to bind both carbon and oxygen makes rubisco both a carboxylase and an oxygenase. Therefore the atmospheric carbon dioxide that enters through stomata competes with oxygen produced via photosynthesis for the active site of rubisco. When rubisco binds with oxygen, photorespiration occurs. This process is very costly because it forms one molecule of 3-phosphoglycerate and one molecule of <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">2-phosphoglycerate</scene> , a metabolically useless product. This binding with O2 does not result in carbon fixation, so the cell has to use a significant amount of cellular energy to salvage the carbons from 2-phosphoglycolate. This lack of specificity has raised many questions? CO2 and O2 are clearly different when it comes to size. So why haven't rubisco evolved to differentiate between these two molecules? There are only hypotheses for these questions without an accurate answer. One of the most compelling hypotheses is that rubisco and carbon dioxide was present in the earth's atmosphere before oxygen. Therefore, there was not any selective pressure when oxygen was not present. In today's environment, the concentration of oxygen far exceeds the concentration of carbon dioxide. As the temperature of the environment increases, the ratio of O2 to CO2 increases. This increases the probability for a plant to favour photorespiration. To overcome this disadvantage, some plants like C4 and CAM have developed different strategies. For a C4 plant, CO2 fixation and rubisco activity are spatially separated. While the CAM plants temporally separated rubisco activity and CO2 capture.<REF NAME=PUKAR> | + | The <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">active site of rubisco</scene> is meant to bind carbon oxide as its substrate. However, due to similar chemical properties and size, oxygen molecules can also easily fit their active site. This ability to bind both carbon and oxygen makes rubisco both a carboxylase and an oxygenase. Therefore the atmospheric carbon dioxide that enters through stomata competes with oxygen produced via photosynthesis for the active site of rubisco. When rubisco binds with oxygen, photorespiration occurs. This process is very costly because it forms one molecule of 3-phosphoglycerate and one molecule of <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">2-phosphoglycerate</scene> , a metabolically useless product. This binding with O2 does not result in carbon fixation, so the cell has to use a significant amount of cellular energy to salvage the carbons from 2-phosphoglycolate. This lack of specificity has raised many questions? CO2 and O2 are clearly different when it comes to size. So why haven't rubisco evolved to differentiate between these two molecules? There are only hypotheses for these questions without an accurate answer. One of the most compelling hypotheses is that rubisco and carbon dioxide was present in the earth's atmosphere before oxygen. Therefore, there was not any selective pressure when oxygen was not present. In today's environment, the concentration of oxygen far exceeds the concentration of carbon dioxide. As the temperature of the environment increases, the ratio of O2 to CO2 increases. This increases the probability for a plant to favour photorespiration. To overcome this disadvantage, some plants like C4 and CAM have developed different strategies. For a C4 plant, CO2 fixation and rubisco activity are spatially separated. While the CAM plants temporally separated rubisco activity and CO2 capture.<REF NAME=PUKAR>DIO:101303262</ref> |
== Relevance == | == Relevance == | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The eight subunits in rubisco each have a large <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">C-terminal lobe</scene> and a small <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">N-terminal lobe</scene>. These subunits form an isolated pair and are arranged in <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">antiparallel format</scene>. The interface of these paired large subunits contains two active sites. When we look at a single subunit, we can observe alpha helices and beta sheets. These form alpha-beta barrels, which is the dominant structure in these large subunits. | The eight subunits in rubisco each have a large <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">C-terminal lobe</scene> and a small <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">N-terminal lobe</scene>. These subunits form an isolated pair and are arranged in <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">antiparallel format</scene>. The interface of these paired large subunits contains two active sites. When we look at a single subunit, we can observe alpha helices and beta sheets. These form alpha-beta barrels, which is the dominant structure in these large subunits. | ||
| - | This is a sample scene created with SAT to <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/1">color</scene> by Group, and another to make <scene name="/12/3456/Sample/2">a transparent representation</scene> of the protein. You can make your own scenes on SAT starting from scratch or loading and editing one of these sample scenes. | ||
</StructureSection> | </StructureSection> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 04:20, 30 April 2021
Your Heading Here (maybe something like 'Structure')
| |||||||||||
References
- ↑ Hanson, R. M., Prilusky, J., Renjian, Z., Nakane, T. and Sussman, J. L. (2013), JSmol and the Next-Generation Web-Based Representation of 3D Molecular Structure as Applied to Proteopedia. Isr. J. Chem., 53:207-216. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201300024
- ↑ Herraez A. Biomolecules in the computer: Jmol to the rescue. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2006 Jul;34(4):255-61. doi: 10.1002/bmb.2006.494034042644. PMID:21638687 doi:10.1002/bmb.2006.494034042644
- ↑ DIO:101303262
