Validating the predictions of murburn model for oxygenic photosynthesis: Analyses of ligand-binding to protein complexes and cross-system comparisons

Abstract

In this second half of our treatise on oxygenic photosynthesis, we provide support for the murburn model of the light reaction of photosynthesis and ratify key predictions made in the first part. Molecular docking and visualization of various ligands of quinones/quinols (and their derivatives) with PS II/Cytochrome b₆f complexes did not support chartered 2e-transport role of quinols. A broad variety of herbicides did not show any affinity/binding-based rationales for inhibition of photosynthesis. We substantiate the proposal that disubstituted phenolics (perceived as protonophores/uncouplers or affinity-based inhibitors in the classical purview) serve as interfacial modulators of diffusible reactive (oxygen) species or DR(O)S. The DRS-based murburn model is evidenced by the identification of multiple ADP-binding sites on the extra-membraneous projection of protein complexes and structure/distribution of the photo/redox catalysts. With a panoramic comparison of the redox metabolic machinery across diverse organellar/cellular systems, we highlight the ubiquitous one-electron murburn facets (cofactors of porphyrin, flavin, FeS, other metal centers and photo/redox active pigments) that enable a facile harnessing of the utility of DRS. In the summative analyses, it is demonstrated that the murburn model of light reaction explains the structures of membrane supercomplexes recently observed in thylakoids and also accounts for several photodynamic experimental observations and evolutionary considerations. In toto, the work provides a new orientation and impetus to photosynthesis research.

Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma

Keywords:

• murburn concept
• light reaction of photosynthesis
• photophosphorylation
• diffusible reactive species (DRS)
• uncoupling
• disubstituted phenolics

Disclosure statement

The work was powered by Satyamjayatu: The Science & Ethics Foundation. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).