TY - JOUR
AU - Hibberd, Julian M
AB - Abstract Large-scale research programmes seeking to characterize the C4 pathway have a requirement for a simple, high throughput screen that quantifies photorespiratory activity in C3 and C4 model systems. At present, approaches rely on model-fitting to assimilatory responses (A/Ci curves, PSII quantum yield) or real-time carbon isotope discrimination, which are complicated and time-consuming. Here we present a method, and the associated theory, to determine the effectiveness of the C4 carboxylation, carbon concentration mechanism (CCM) by assessing the responsiveness of VO/VC, the ratio of RuBisCO oxygenase to carboxylase activity, upon transfer to low O2. This determination compares concurrent gas exchange and pulse-modulated chlorophyll fluorescence under ambient and low O2, using widely available equipment. Run time for the procedure can take as little as 6 minutes if plants are pre-adapted. The responsiveness of VO/VC is derived for typical C3 (tobacco, rice, wheat) and C4 (maize, Miscanthus, cleome) plants, and compared with full C3 and C4 model systems. We also undertake sensitivity analyses to determine the impact of RLIGHT (respiration in the light) and the effectiveness of the light saturating pulse used by fluorescence systems. The results show that the method can readily resolve variations in photorespiratory activity between C3 and C4 plants and could be used to rapidly screen large numbers of mutants or transformants in high throughput studies. C4, C3, photosynthesis, RuBisCO, oxygenation, carboxylation, carbon concentration mechanism (CCM), Cleome gynandra, rice, maize, wheat, Miscanthus Introduction In most photosynthetic organisms Ribulose Bisphosphate Carboxylase Oxygenase (RuBisCO) catalyses the first key step in carbon assimilation, reacting ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate with CO2 to produce two molecules of 3-phosphoglycerate (PGA). Oxygen competitively inhibits this reaction and leads to the synthesis of the 2-carbon compound phosphoglycollate, which is recycled to PGA (consuming ATP, and then NADPH) and CO2 by the photorespiratory cycle (Yoshimura et al., 2004; Sage et al., 2012). The result of photorespiration is a noticeable carbon loss and a consequent metabolic cost for carbon recapture and for the recycling of photorespiratory intermediates (Ehleringer and Pearcy, 1983; Pearcy and Ehleringer, 1984; Eckardt, 2005). Many plants have evolved strategies to reduce photorespiration by increasing the level of CO2 around RuBisCO, including both crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) and the C4 photosynthetic pathway (Dodd et al., 2002; Sage, 2004; Sage et al., 2011; Osborne and Sack, 2012; Griffiths et al., 2013; Owen and Griffiths, 2013). C4 photosynthesis is most often based on a two-celled carbon concentrating mechanism, where HCO3– is first fixed into the four-carbon compound oxaloacetic acid (OAA) in the mesophyll by phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC). OAA is then reduced to malate or transaminated to aspartate and the resulting C4-(amino)acid is shuttled into the bundle sheath (BS), where it is decarboxylated, releasing CO2 for refixation by RuBisCO (Hibberd and Covshoff, 2010; Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014c). Although the enzymes catalysing the core C4 carbon concentration mechanism (CCM) are well characterized (Kanai and Edwards, 1999), many of the genes responsible for the accompanying anatomical alterations or for generating and maintaining expression of the C4 cycle genes (Hibberd et al., 2008; Langdale, 2011) have yet to be identified. One approach that is increasingly proving useful to identify candidate genes underlying the C4 pathway is comparative transcriptomics of samples either undergoing C3 or C4 photosynthesis (Bräutigam et al., 2011; Gowik et al., 2011; John et al., 2014), or tissues in the process of inducing the full C4 system (Li et al., 2010; Pick et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). Because stable transformation of C4 species is typically time-consuming, introduction of RNA interference constructs via a transient Agrobacterium tumefaciens-based system would be very helpful in screening these candidates being generated from transcriptomics. At present, techniques used to screen for mutants possessing defective, or enhanced CCM characteristics are time-consuming (Table 1). Analysing the response of assimilation (A) to decreasing CO2 concentration in the substomatal cavity (Ci), as A/Ci curves (Long and Bernacchi, 2003; Yin et al., 2011a) can take 45 minutes per replicate leaf, and an appropriate model, which may require a priori knowledge of species-specific limitations (Laisk and Edwards, 2000; von Caemmerer, 2000, 2013; Yin and Struik, 2009; Yin et al., 2009; Yin et al., 2011b). 13C/12C discrimination during photosynthesis (Evans et al., 1986) can also be used, and a comparison with stomatal conductance allows the internal mesophyll conductance, or extent of CCM or PEPC activity, to be resolved (Meyer et al., 2008; Kromdijk et al., 2010; Pengelly et al., 2010; Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014a, b, c). However, this latter technique is sensitive, and requires either off-line sample preparation for mass spectrometric analyses or specialized laser equipment which is not readily available (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison between methods screening for activity of a functional CCM Method . Advantages and limitations . Reference . Dry matter isotopic discrimination *Specialized equipment *Integrates the isotopic signal throughout growth *Cannot resolve transient changes in assimilatory physiology Cernusak et al. (2013) On line isotopic discrimination *Laser is no longer commercially available *Maintenance costs of isotope ratio mass spectrometer *Need of highly skilled operator *Difficult computation and parameterization Evans et al. (1986); Bellasio and Griffiths (2014b); von Caemmerer et al. (2014) A/Ci curves *Requires a priori knowledge of the limitations underpinning each part for the A/Ci curve for correct model fitting *Result may depend on experimental routine Long and Bernacchi (2003); Yin et al. (2009) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Requires initial response curve for parameterisation *Requires model fitting Long and Bernacchi (2003); Martins et al. (2013) O2 sensitivity of carboxylation efficiency *Delicate experimental routine Laisk et al. (2002); Yin et al. (2009) Assimilation increase under low O2 *Ease of determination *Ignores the effect of changing O2 concentration on Y(II) Sharkey (1988); Ripley et al. (2007) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Rapid (6 minutes) *Widely available equipment *Independent of leaf size *Ease of determination and calculation *Does not require fitting or parameterisation *Assessment under growth conditions This study Method . Advantages and limitations . Reference . Dry matter isotopic discrimination *Specialized equipment *Integrates the isotopic signal throughout growth *Cannot resolve transient changes in assimilatory physiology Cernusak et al. (2013) On line isotopic discrimination *Laser is no longer commercially available *Maintenance costs of isotope ratio mass spectrometer *Need of highly skilled operator *Difficult computation and parameterization Evans et al. (1986); Bellasio and Griffiths (2014b); von Caemmerer et al. (2014) A/Ci curves *Requires a priori knowledge of the limitations underpinning each part for the A/Ci curve for correct model fitting *Result may depend on experimental routine Long and Bernacchi (2003); Yin et al. (2009) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Requires initial response curve for parameterisation *Requires model fitting Long and Bernacchi (2003); Martins et al. (2013) O2 sensitivity of carboxylation efficiency *Delicate experimental routine Laisk et al. (2002); Yin et al. (2009) Assimilation increase under low O2 *Ease of determination *Ignores the effect of changing O2 concentration on Y(II) Sharkey (1988); Ripley et al. (2007) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Rapid (6 minutes) *Widely available equipment *Independent of leaf size *Ease of determination and calculation *Does not require fitting or parameterisation *Assessment under growth conditions This study Open in new tab Table 1. Comparison between methods screening for activity of a functional CCM Method . Advantages and limitations . Reference . Dry matter isotopic discrimination *Specialized equipment *Integrates the isotopic signal throughout growth *Cannot resolve transient changes in assimilatory physiology Cernusak et al. (2013) On line isotopic discrimination *Laser is no longer commercially available *Maintenance costs of isotope ratio mass spectrometer *Need of highly skilled operator *Difficult computation and parameterization Evans et al. (1986); Bellasio and Griffiths (2014b); von Caemmerer et al. (2014) A/Ci curves *Requires a priori knowledge of the limitations underpinning each part for the A/Ci curve for correct model fitting *Result may depend on experimental routine Long and Bernacchi (2003); Yin et al. (2009) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Requires initial response curve for parameterisation *Requires model fitting Long and Bernacchi (2003); Martins et al. (2013) O2 sensitivity of carboxylation efficiency *Delicate experimental routine Laisk et al. (2002); Yin et al. (2009) Assimilation increase under low O2 *Ease of determination *Ignores the effect of changing O2 concentration on Y(II) Sharkey (1988); Ripley et al. (2007) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Rapid (6 minutes) *Widely available equipment *Independent of leaf size *Ease of determination and calculation *Does not require fitting or parameterisation *Assessment under growth conditions This study Method . Advantages and limitations . Reference . Dry matter isotopic discrimination *Specialized equipment *Integrates the isotopic signal throughout growth *Cannot resolve transient changes in assimilatory physiology Cernusak et al. (2013) On line isotopic discrimination *Laser is no longer commercially available *Maintenance costs of isotope ratio mass spectrometer *Need of highly skilled operator *Difficult computation and parameterization Evans et al. (1986); Bellasio and Griffiths (2014b); von Caemmerer et al. (2014) A/Ci curves *Requires a priori knowledge of the limitations underpinning each part for the A/Ci curve for correct model fitting *Result may depend on experimental routine Long and Bernacchi (2003); Yin et al. (2009) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Requires initial response curve for parameterisation *Requires model fitting Long and Bernacchi (2003); Martins et al. (2013) O2 sensitivity of carboxylation efficiency *Delicate experimental routine Laisk et al. (2002); Yin et al. (2009) Assimilation increase under low O2 *Ease of determination *Ignores the effect of changing O2 concentration on Y(II) Sharkey (1988); Ripley et al. (2007) Gas exchange and fluorescence *Rapid (6 minutes) *Widely available equipment *Independent of leaf size *Ease of determination and calculation *Does not require fitting or parameterisation *Assessment under growth conditions This study Open in new tab In this paper we describe a novel method, and present the associated theory, to determine rates of photorespiration from instantaneous rates of RuBisCO carboxylation and oxygenation. The approach compares concurrent gas exchange and pulse-modulated chlorophyll fluorescence measurements under ambient and low O2. Under these non-photorespiratory conditions assimilation (A) increases, because RuBisCO competitive inhibition from O2 is reduced. In contrast, Y(II) decreases because the demand for NADPH associated with photorespiratory by-product cycling (and reduction) is lower, and cannot entirely be offset by the increase in A. The new method combines developments in approaches using gas exchange (Sharkey, 1988; Long and Bernacchi, 2003; Ripley et al., 2007) and the quantitative interpretation of quantum yield (Yin et al., 2004, 2009, 2011b; Yin and Struik, 2009, 2012; Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014b). This new method can be performed with off-the-shelf commercial equipment, which is generally available in ecophysiology laboratories. The procedure takes as little as 6 minutes to perform if plants are pre-adapted, making it significantly faster than A/Ci curves and potentially useful as a high-throughput approach for assessing C4 activity in mutant screens, the progeny from C3–C4 crosses or C3–C4 intermediates. Materials and methods Plants Plants of Miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), cleome (Cleome gynandra), maize (Zea mays L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), and rice (Oryza sativa L.) were grown at the Plant Growth Facility located at the University of Cambridge Botanic Garden in controlled environment growth rooms (Conviron Ltd, Winnipeg, Canada) set at 16h day length, temperature of 25 °C/23 °C (day/night), 40% relative humidity, and photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD)=300 μmol m–2 s–1. Plants were manually watered daily, with particular care to avoid overwatering. Gas exchange measurements with concurrent PSII yield Measurements were performed with an infra-red gas analyser (IRGA, a LI6400XT, LI-cor, USA), fitted with a 6400–40 leaf chamber fluorometer. The IRGA was fed with CO2 (through the IRGA gas mixing unit) and ambient air. Gas flow was set at 150 μmol s–1. Reference CO2 was set at 200 μmol mol–1 (Figure 1 and Table 1) or set alternatively at 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, and 50 μmol s–1 (Figure 3). Block temperature was controlled at 35 °C. The fluorometer was set to multiphase pulse with factory setting, target intensity=10 and ramp depth=40% (Loriaux et al., 2013). A portion of a light-adapted leaf was clamped in the cuvette. The leaf was allowed to reach stable photosynthetic conditions under PPFD=300 μmol m–2 s–1 (factory setting: 90% red, 10% blue). Photosynthesis was measured every 10 s for 30 s (the three values were then averaged) and a multiphase pulse was applied for the determination of Y(II). A humidified 2% O2/N2 gas (pre-mixed, BOC, Guilford, UK) was switched to supply the inlet of the IRGA. The gas was allowed to completely flush the cuvette (c. 6min). Photosynthesis was measured every 10 s for 30 s (the three values were then averaged) and a multiphase pulse was applied for the determination of Y(II). Light was turned off, the inlet was fed with ambient air, the reference CO2 was set at 500 μmol mol–1, similar to the lab CO2 concentration (c. 550 μmol mol–1) to minimize the errors caused by CO2 leakage (Boesgaard et al., 2013), and flow was set to 40 μmol s–1. Once the cuvette had been flushed, and the signal stabilised (c. 5min), respiration was measured every 10 s for 2min (the values were then averaged). Ca was not adjusted to account for changes in stomatal conductance or for the control of Ci during this procedure. This avoided the need for IRGA recalibration as the Y(II) measurements are independent of Ci. The measured A and Y(II) under low and ambient O2, together with an estimate of RLIGHT (see below), were used to determine RuBisCO rate of carboxylation (VC), RuBisCO rate of oxygenation (VO), and the rate of photorespiratory CO2 evolution in the light (F). Theory RuBisCO catalyses two reactions: a carboxylase reaction whereby Ribulose BisPhosphate (RuBP) is carboxylated to form two molecules of phosphoglyceric acid (PGA), and an oxygenase reaction whereby RuBP is oxygenated to form one PGA and one glycollate molecule. Each carboxylase event requires 2 NADPH for the reduction of the 2 PGA molecules formed. Each oxygenase event requires 1 NADPH for the reduction of the PGA directly produced by RuBisCO, 0.5 NADPH to recycle glycollate, and 0.5 NADPH to reduce the PGA regenerated, which total 2 NADPH (Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014c). The overall NADPH demand, at steady-state, equals the total photosynthetic NADPH production rate JNADPH (Yin et al., 2004; Yin and Struik, 2012): JNADPH=2VC+2VO(1) Where JNADPH is the total NADPH produced for photosynthesis, VC is RuBisCO carboxylation rate, and VO is RuBisCO oxygenation rate. Notably, this reducing power requirement is the same for all types of photosynthesis, as active types of CCM require additional ATP but not NADPH. In line with von Caemmerer (2000) equation 1 assumes that PGA is entirely reduced, and therefore the small quantity of PGA consumed by respiration ( 13RLIGHT) is neglected, in fact under growth light irradiance 2VC+2VO>> 13RLIGHT, unless at very low irradiances, see equation 7 in Bellasio and Griffiths (2014c). Although the carboxylation reaction of RuBisCO consumes CO2, the regeneration of glycollate releases 0.5 CO2 for each oxygenase catalytic event. CO2 is also produced by light respiration, a process which is active during photosynthesis to support basal metabolism. The net assimilation rate (A, which is the quantity measured through gas exchange) results from summing the CO2 consumed by RuBisCO, the CO2 produced by glycollate regeneration and the CO2 produced by respiration: A=VC−12VO−RLIGHT(2) Where A is net CO2 assimilation, RLIGHT is respiration in the light and other variables were previously defined. Notably, this equation is universal for all types of photosynthesis (von Caemmerer, 2013). For the definition of gross assimilation (GA = A + RLIGHT), equation 2 can be rearranged: VC=GA+12VO(3) Equation 1 and 3 can be combined to give: VO=JNADPH−2GA3(4) The rate of photorespiratory CO2 evolution, F can be calculated as: (von Caemmerer, 2013) F=12VO(5) Under low O2, VO can be approximated to ≈0, hence, from equation 4: JNADPH Low O2=2GALow O2(6) Which is valid when VO≈0. NADPH is produced through linear electron flow. Independently from where this reaction is located (e.g. in mesophyll cells), electrons are invariably extracted from water by PSII (Yin and Struik, 2012), therefore JNADPH is proportional to Y(II) (Yin and Struik, 2012). This allows JNADPH to be calculated under photorespiratory conditions using the information derived under non-photorespiratory conditions, and can be expressed as (Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014b): JNADPH=JNADPH Low O2Y(II)Y(II)Low O2(7) Where JNADPH and Y(II) refer to ambient O2 conditions. Equation 7 has been validated in C3 and C4 plants (Yin et al., 2009, 2011b; Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014b, c) but it is worth noting that equation 7 is a mathematical simplification and holds true when: (i) photorespiration is negligible under non-photorespiratory conditions, which is a widely used simplification; (ii) RLIGHT does not vary between low and ambient O2—this is also a fair assumption because any O2 effect is generally negligible (Badger, 1985; Gupta et al., 2009); (iii) the allocation to alternative sinks (non-assimilatory and non-photorespiratory) is proportional to Y(II). This is the normal case in C4 plants where the relationship between Y(II) and Y(CO2) has a null intercept (Edwards and Baker, 1993). When that is not the case, for instance when the allocation to alternative sinks is constant, equation 7 would also hold true if the allocation to alternative sinks is small compared with Y(II). This is the normal case in C3 plants (Valentini et al., 1995; Martins et al., 2013). Should the allocation to alternative sinks be large, equation 7 would still hold true mathematically when Y(II)Y(II)Low O2 is close to the unity. The implications for method accuracy are detailed in the discussion. Equation 3, 4, 6, and 7 can be combined to obtain: VOVC=2GALow O2Y(II)Y(II)Low O2−2GAGALow O2Y(II)Y(II)Low O2+2GA(8) Which expresses the RuBisCO rate of oxygenation relative to carboxylation. The influence on the quality of RLIGHT estimate on VO/VC is described in the discussion, together with the other factors influencing the results. Modelling C3 and C4VO/VC The data obtained for tobacco and maize were compared with a simulated VO/VC based on the validated von Caemmerer models for C3 and C4 photosynthesis. Briefly, for tobacco, the response of A to Ci was modelled using the quadratic equation (Table 3, equation 9) proposed by Ethier and Livingston (2004), which takes into account mesophyll conductance to CO2. The CO2 concentration at the site of carboxylation CC was then calculated through the supply function of mesophyll (equation 10), and, finally VO/VC was simulated from the kinetic properties of RuBisCO and the ratio between CC and the O2 concentration at the site of carboxylation (equation 11). For maize (Table 4), firstly we simulated the responses of VP and A to decreasing Ci, using the equations for the enzyme-limited model for C4 photosynthesis (equation 12 and 16, respectively). These were used to simulate the CO2 and O2 concentration in the bundle sheath (equation 13 and 14, respectively), the ratio of which, together with RuBisCO specificity, was used to simulate VO/VC (equation 15 and 17). Table 2. Example of variability within populations and between populations displayed by plants with different pathways of assimilation VO/VC was measured on species (Miscanthus, Cleome gynandra, maize, wheat, tobacco, and rice) under photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 300 μmol m–2 s–1, and Ca=200 μmol mol–1. Population . n . Mean VO/VC . Standard deviation . Coefficient of variation . Miscanthus 7 0.0504 0.0091 18% Cleome gynandra 5 0.0852 0.0046 5.4% Maize 4 0.0435 0.0074 17% Wheat 3 0.522 0.071 14% Tobacco 4 0.533 0.030 5.5% Rice 4 0.569 0.037 6.5% Population . n . Mean VO/VC . Standard deviation . Coefficient of variation . Miscanthus 7 0.0504 0.0091 18% Cleome gynandra 5 0.0852 0.0046 5.4% Maize 4 0.0435 0.0074 17% Wheat 3 0.522 0.071 14% Tobacco 4 0.533 0.030 5.5% Rice 4 0.569 0.037 6.5% Open in new tab Table 2. Example of variability within populations and between populations displayed by plants with different pathways of assimilation VO/VC was measured on species (Miscanthus, Cleome gynandra, maize, wheat, tobacco, and rice) under photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 300 μmol m–2 s–1, and Ca=200 μmol mol–1. Population . n . Mean VO/VC . Standard deviation . Coefficient of variation . Miscanthus 7 0.0504 0.0091 18% Cleome gynandra 5 0.0852 0.0046 5.4% Maize 4 0.0435 0.0074 17% Wheat 3 0.522 0.071 14% Tobacco 4 0.533 0.030 5.5% Rice 4 0.569 0.037 6.5% Population . n . Mean VO/VC . Standard deviation . Coefficient of variation . Miscanthus 7 0.0504 0.0091 18% Cleome gynandra 5 0.0852 0.0046 5.4% Maize 4 0.0435 0.0074 17% Wheat 3 0.522 0.071 14% Tobacco 4 0.533 0.030 5.5% Rice 4 0.569 0.037 6.5% Open in new tab Table 3. Model for C3 photosynthesis Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b + b2−4ac2a where: a =−1gm; b =(VCmax−RLIGHT)gm+Ci+KC(1+OKO); c =RLIGHT(Ci+KC(1+OKO))−VCmax(Ci−Γ*) (9) Ethier and Livingston (2004) Cc CO2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation Cc =Ci−Agm (10) μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA. μmol mol–1 (Li-cor 6400 manual equation 1–18) gm Mesophyll conductance to CO2 0.25mol m–2 s–1 bar–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 319.3 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 277100 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) O O2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation 200000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light 0.63 μmol m–2 s–1 VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 34.7 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) VO/VC VOVC=VOmaxKCVCmaxKO OCC (11) equation 2.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VOmax Maximum RuBisCO oxygenation rate 13.25 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration 44 μbar Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b + b2−4ac2a where: a =−1gm; b =(VCmax−RLIGHT)gm+Ci+KC(1+OKO); c =RLIGHT(Ci+KC(1+OKO))−VCmax(Ci−Γ*) (9) Ethier and Livingston (2004) Cc CO2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation Cc =Ci−Agm (10) μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA. μmol mol–1 (Li-cor 6400 manual equation 1–18) gm Mesophyll conductance to CO2 0.25mol m–2 s–1 bar–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 319.3 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 277100 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) O O2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation 200000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light 0.63 μmol m–2 s–1 VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 34.7 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) VO/VC VOVC=VOmaxKCVCmaxKO OCC (11) equation 2.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VOmax Maximum RuBisCO oxygenation rate 13.25 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration 44 μbar Open in new tab Table 3. Model for C3 photosynthesis Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b + b2−4ac2a where: a =−1gm; b =(VCmax−RLIGHT)gm+Ci+KC(1+OKO); c =RLIGHT(Ci+KC(1+OKO))−VCmax(Ci−Γ*) (9) Ethier and Livingston (2004) Cc CO2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation Cc =Ci−Agm (10) μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA. μmol mol–1 (Li-cor 6400 manual equation 1–18) gm Mesophyll conductance to CO2 0.25mol m–2 s–1 bar–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 319.3 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 277100 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) O O2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation 200000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light 0.63 μmol m–2 s–1 VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 34.7 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) VO/VC VOVC=VOmaxKCVCmaxKO OCC (11) equation 2.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VOmax Maximum RuBisCO oxygenation rate 13.25 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration 44 μbar Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b + b2−4ac2a where: a =−1gm; b =(VCmax−RLIGHT)gm+Ci+KC(1+OKO); c =RLIGHT(Ci+KC(1+OKO))−VCmax(Ci−Γ*) (9) Ethier and Livingston (2004) Cc CO2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation Cc =Ci−Agm (10) μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA. μmol mol–1 (Li-cor 6400 manual equation 1–18) gm Mesophyll conductance to CO2 0.25mol m–2 s–1 bar–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 319.3 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 277100 μbar (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) O O2 partial pressure at the site of carboxylation 200000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light 0.63 μmol m–2 s–1 VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 34.7 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) VO/VC VOVC=VOmaxKCVCmaxKO OCC (11) equation 2.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VOmax Maximum RuBisCO oxygenation rate 13.25 μmol m–2 s–1 (Ethier and Livingston, 2004) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration 44 μbar Open in new tab Table 4. Model for C4 photosynthesis Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b − b2−4ac2a where: a =1−αKC0.047KO ; b =−{(VP−RM+gBSCM)+(VCmax−RLIGHT)+gBSKC(1+OMKO)+α0.047(γ* VCmax+RLIGHTKCKO)}; c =(VCmax−RLIGHT)(VP−RM+gBSCM)−(VCmaxgBSγ*OM+RLIGHTgBSKC(1+OMKO)) (12) Equation 4.21 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CBS CO2 concentration in the bundle sheath CBS =γ*OBS+KC(1+OBSKO) A+RLIGHTVCmax1− A+RLIGHTVCmax (13) Equation 4.11 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CM CO2 partial pressure in M (at the site of PEP carboxylation) CM =Ci μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA μbar gBS Bundle sheath conductance to CO2 0.005mol m2 s–1 KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 650 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 450000 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KP PEPC Michaelis-Menten constant 80 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) OBS O2 mol fraction in the bundle sheath cells (in air at equilibrium) OBS=OM+αA0.047gBS (14) μmol mol–1 Equation 4.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) OM O2 partial pressure in the mesophyll cells (in air at equilibrium) 210000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light, assumed to equal dark respiration RM Mesophyll non photorespiratory CO2 production in the light RM = 0.5 RLIGHT μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010; Ubierna et al., 2013) VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 60 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000 VO/VC VOVC=2 Γ*CBS (15) Equation 4.8 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VP PEP Carboxylation rate VP=CMVPmaxCM+KP (16) Equation 4.17 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VPmax Maximum PEPC carboxylation rate 120 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000) α Fraction of PSII active in BS cells 0.15 (Edwards and Baker, 1993; von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010) γ* Half of the reciprocal of the RuBisCO specificity 0.000193 (von Caemmerer, 2000) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration Γ* =γ*OBS (17) Equation 4.9 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b − b2−4ac2a where: a =1−αKC0.047KO ; b =−{(VP−RM+gBSCM)+(VCmax−RLIGHT)+gBSKC(1+OMKO)+α0.047(γ* VCmax+RLIGHTKCKO)}; c =(VCmax−RLIGHT)(VP−RM+gBSCM)−(VCmaxgBSγ*OM+RLIGHTgBSKC(1+OMKO)) (12) Equation 4.21 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CBS CO2 concentration in the bundle sheath CBS =γ*OBS+KC(1+OBSKO) A+RLIGHTVCmax1− A+RLIGHTVCmax (13) Equation 4.11 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CM CO2 partial pressure in M (at the site of PEP carboxylation) CM =Ci μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA μbar gBS Bundle sheath conductance to CO2 0.005mol m2 s–1 KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 650 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 450000 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KP PEPC Michaelis-Menten constant 80 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) OBS O2 mol fraction in the bundle sheath cells (in air at equilibrium) OBS=OM+αA0.047gBS (14) μmol mol–1 Equation 4.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) OM O2 partial pressure in the mesophyll cells (in air at equilibrium) 210000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light, assumed to equal dark respiration RM Mesophyll non photorespiratory CO2 production in the light RM = 0.5 RLIGHT μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010; Ubierna et al., 2013) VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 60 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000 VO/VC VOVC=2 Γ*CBS (15) Equation 4.8 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VP PEP Carboxylation rate VP=CMVPmaxCM+KP (16) Equation 4.17 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VPmax Maximum PEPC carboxylation rate 120 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000) α Fraction of PSII active in BS cells 0.15 (Edwards and Baker, 1993; von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010) γ* Half of the reciprocal of the RuBisCO specificity 0.000193 (von Caemmerer, 2000) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration Γ* =γ*OBS (17) Equation 4.9 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) Open in new tab Table 4. Model for C4 photosynthesis Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b − b2−4ac2a where: a =1−αKC0.047KO ; b =−{(VP−RM+gBSCM)+(VCmax−RLIGHT)+gBSKC(1+OMKO)+α0.047(γ* VCmax+RLIGHTKCKO)}; c =(VCmax−RLIGHT)(VP−RM+gBSCM)−(VCmaxgBSγ*OM+RLIGHTgBSKC(1+OMKO)) (12) Equation 4.21 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CBS CO2 concentration in the bundle sheath CBS =γ*OBS+KC(1+OBSKO) A+RLIGHTVCmax1− A+RLIGHTVCmax (13) Equation 4.11 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CM CO2 partial pressure in M (at the site of PEP carboxylation) CM =Ci μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA μbar gBS Bundle sheath conductance to CO2 0.005mol m2 s–1 KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 650 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 450000 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KP PEPC Michaelis-Menten constant 80 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) OBS O2 mol fraction in the bundle sheath cells (in air at equilibrium) OBS=OM+αA0.047gBS (14) μmol mol–1 Equation 4.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) OM O2 partial pressure in the mesophyll cells (in air at equilibrium) 210000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light, assumed to equal dark respiration RM Mesophyll non photorespiratory CO2 production in the light RM = 0.5 RLIGHT μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010; Ubierna et al., 2013) VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 60 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000 VO/VC VOVC=2 Γ*CBS (15) Equation 4.8 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VP PEP Carboxylation rate VP=CMVPmaxCM+KP (16) Equation 4.17 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VPmax Maximum PEPC carboxylation rate 120 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000) α Fraction of PSII active in BS cells 0.15 (Edwards and Baker, 1993; von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010) γ* Half of the reciprocal of the RuBisCO specificity 0.000193 (von Caemmerer, 2000) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration Γ* =γ*OBS (17) Equation 4.9 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) Symbol . Definition/calculation . Equation . Values/Units/References . A Net Assimilation A=− b − b2−4ac2a where: a =1−αKC0.047KO ; b =−{(VP−RM+gBSCM)+(VCmax−RLIGHT)+gBSKC(1+OMKO)+α0.047(γ* VCmax+RLIGHTKCKO)}; c =(VCmax−RLIGHT)(VP−RM+gBSCM)−(VCmaxgBSγ*OM+RLIGHTgBSKC(1+OMKO)) (12) Equation 4.21 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CBS CO2 concentration in the bundle sheath CBS =γ*OBS+KC(1+OBSKO) A+RLIGHTVCmax1− A+RLIGHTVCmax (13) Equation 4.11 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) CM CO2 partial pressure in M (at the site of PEP carboxylation) CM =Ci μbar Ci CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces as calculated by the IRGA μbar gBS Bundle sheath conductance to CO2 0.005mol m2 s–1 KC RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for CO2 650 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KO RuBisCO Michaelis-Menten constant for O2 450000 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) KP PEPC Michaelis-Menten constant 80 μbar (von Caemmerer, 2000) OBS O2 mol fraction in the bundle sheath cells (in air at equilibrium) OBS=OM+αA0.047gBS (14) μmol mol–1 Equation 4.16 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) OM O2 partial pressure in the mesophyll cells (in air at equilibrium) 210000 μbar RLIGHT Respiration in the light, assumed to equal dark respiration RM Mesophyll non photorespiratory CO2 production in the light RM = 0.5 RLIGHT μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010; Ubierna et al., 2013) VCmax Maximum RuBisCO carboxylation rate 60 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000 VO/VC VOVC=2 Γ*CBS (15) Equation 4.8 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VP PEP Carboxylation rate VP=CMVPmaxCM+KP (16) Equation 4.17 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) VPmax Maximum PEPC carboxylation rate 120 μmol m–2 s–1 (von Caemmerer, 2000) α Fraction of PSII active in BS cells 0.15 (Edwards and Baker, 1993; von Caemmerer, 2000; Kromdijk et al., 2010) γ* Half of the reciprocal of the RuBisCO specificity 0.000193 (von Caemmerer, 2000) Γ* CO2 compensation point in absence of dark respiration Γ* =γ*OBS (17) Equation 4.9 in (von Caemmerer, 2000) Open in new tab Results Figure 1 displays a typical primary data profile for a C3 tobacco leaf, showing the interaction between steady state assimilation (A) and quantum yield of PSII, Y(II), during the transition from ambient to low O2 (21 to 2% O2), with hatched areas indicating the steady state conditions under which readings were taken to derive VO/VC. Under non-photorespiratory conditions, A increases because of the lower competitive inhibition of O2, whereas Y(II) decreases owing to the lower NADPH demand for photorespiratory by-product recycling and reduction. The experimental conditions were deliberately chosen to minimize reductions of quantum yield at saturating light (relatively low PPFD of 300 μmol m–2 s–1), and enhance photorespiratory responses to low O2 partial pressure (measurements at 200 μmol mol–1 CO2) (Fig. 1 and Table 2). Subsequently, VO/VC was measured on C3 tobacco and C4 maize using different CO2 concentrations in the reference gas: 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, and 50 μmol mol–1 (Fig. 2) and results were compared with simulated values of VO/VC generated with the validated von Caemmerer C3 and C4 models. To facilitate the comparison, data were plotted against the substomatal CO2 concentration Ci. As expected, under decreasing Ci, VO/VC becomes progressively higher in tobacco but it is only marginally affected in maize. The measured data track the trend and magnitude of the theoretical curves in C3, whereas we could not capture the theoretical increase in VO/VC expected when Ci was close to zero. This may be due to errors in the determination of Ci at very low stomatal conductance or to the simplifications used to resolve equation 7. Our data slightly underestimate VO/VC derived using pulsed of 13C enriched CO2 (Busch et al., 2013), which, however, lay above the curve simulated with the von Caemmerer C3 model (see Fig. 2). Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Summary of experimental approach. One representative dataset from C3 tobacco is presented. Once stable assimilatory conditions are reached, a first set of data are recorded (left hatched area). The background gas is then switched from ambient to 2% O2. After a suitable acclimation time to allow flushing of the cuvette and reacclimation (c. 6min), a second set of data are recorded (right hatched area). The response of assimilation (triangles) and Photosystem II yield Y(II) (squares) during the experiment are shown. Fig. 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Summary of experimental approach. One representative dataset from C3 tobacco is presented. Once stable assimilatory conditions are reached, a first set of data are recorded (left hatched area). The background gas is then switched from ambient to 2% O2. After a suitable acclimation time to allow flushing of the cuvette and reacclimation (c. 6min), a second set of data are recorded (right hatched area). The response of assimilation (triangles) and Photosystem II yield Y(II) (squares) during the experiment are shown. Fig. 2. Open in new tabDownload slide VO/VC measured under different CO2 concentrations in the substomatal cavity (Ci), obtained by imposing reference CO2 concentrations of 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, and 50 μmol mol–1 for C3 tobacco (triangles) and C4 maize (squares). Data are compared with simulated VO/VC using the validated von Caemmerer C3 and C4 models (lines, see also Table 3 and 4). With decreasing Ci, VO/VC gets progressively higher in tobacco but it is only marginally affected in maize, CO2 concentration can therefore be used to control the resolution of the method. All data shown, n=4. Fig. 2. Open in new tabDownload slide VO/VC measured under different CO2 concentrations in the substomatal cavity (Ci), obtained by imposing reference CO2 concentrations of 400, 300, 200, 150, 100, and 50 μmol mol–1 for C3 tobacco (triangles) and C4 maize (squares). Data are compared with simulated VO/VC using the validated von Caemmerer C3 and C4 models (lines, see also Table 3 and 4). With decreasing Ci, VO/VC gets progressively higher in tobacco but it is only marginally affected in maize, CO2 concentration can therefore be used to control the resolution of the method. All data shown, n=4. Additional measurements were undertaken with the IRGA, including a recalibration procedure to account for the changing sensitivity to water vapour pressure after the transition to low O2, but stomatal conductance was reduced on average by 1% and internal CO2 concentration, Ci, by 3 μmol mol–1 (data not shown). In the subsequent sections, primary data for VO/VC determinations using this new method (calculated from equation 4) are initially presented for three representatives of C3 and C4 species. We then undertake a systematic error analysis of the method, to include the impact of biological and environmental variables. These include physiological components (RLIGHT) and Fm′, as well as light intensity and CO2 concentration used during experimentation. Variability between and within populations Table 2 demonstrates that the method clearly discriminates between C4 species, possessing a functional CCM, and C3 species with higher rates of photorespiration. VO/VC ranged from 0.0435 to 0.0852 for the representative C4 species, with coefficients of variation ranging from c. 15% down to 5% in C. gynandra (Table 2). For the C3 species, VO/VC ranged from 0.522 to 0.569, with a low coefficient of variation in tobacco and rice around 6% (Table 2). The magnitude of the offset between C3 and C4 systems, if being used as a rapid screen, would allow changes in expression of C4 characteristics to be clearly resolved. Such an approach would then allow more detailed characterisation of selected transformants, C2, or C3–C4 intermediates to be undertaken. Accuracy of RLIGHT estimates To account for the extent that RLIGHT affected the measurement of VO/VC, a sensitivity analysis was used to determine how RLIGHT influences VO/VC (Fig. 3). To do so, equation 8 was calculated for a realistic dataset (RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC=0.2 and Y(II)=0.65) at variable assimilation values. Then, test values for VO/VC were calculated after RLIGHT was varied to 2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+100%), 1.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (+50%), 1.2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+20%), 0.8 μmol m–2 s–1 (–20%), 0.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (–50%), 0 μmol m–2 s–1 (–100%, GA=A). The deviation from the set VO/VC value (0.2) represented the effect of errors in the evaluation of RLIGHT on VO/VC. Figure 3 shows that VO/VC was relatively insensitive to RLIGHT: for assimilation rates higher than 4 μmol m–2 s–1, RLIGHT values which differed ± 50% resulted in an error lower than 4% in relative terms. RLIGHT overestimation resulted in a lower error than RLIGHT underestimation. For these reasons there is generally no need for a high quality estimate of RLIGHT. Fig. 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Sensitivity to errors in the determination of RLIGHT. True values were simulated by calculating equation 8 for RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC = 0.2, and Y(II)=0.65 at variable assimilation (A) values. Test values of VO/VC were then calculated by solving equation 8 at different values for RLIGHT: 2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+100%), 1.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (+50%), 1.2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+20%), 0.8 μmol m–2 s–1 (–20%), 0.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (–50%), 0 μmol m–2 s–1 (–100%, GA=A). The difference in VO/VC between the test minus the true value was expressed as relative to the true value. Fig. 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Sensitivity to errors in the determination of RLIGHT. True values were simulated by calculating equation 8 for RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC = 0.2, and Y(II)=0.65 at variable assimilation (A) values. Test values of VO/VC were then calculated by solving equation 8 at different values for RLIGHT: 2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+100%), 1.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (+50%), 1.2 μmol m–2 s–1 (+20%), 0.8 μmol m–2 s–1 (–20%), 0.5 μmol m–2 s–1 (–50%), 0 μmol m–2 s–1 (–100%, GA=A). The difference in VO/VC between the test minus the true value was expressed as relative to the true value. Accuracy of Fm′ measurements Equations 7 and 8 require the photochemical yield of PSII, Y(II). This is determined according to the formula of Genty (Genty et al., 1989; Maxwell and Johnson, 2000; Kramer et al., 2004), whereby Y(II) is calculated as the difference between the light-saturated chlorophyll fluorescence signal (Fm′) minus the chlorophyll fluorescence signal measured during photosynthesis (Fs), expressed as relative to Fm′. Key to this technique is achieving full saturation of PSII in the determination of Fm′ (Earl and Ennahli, 2004; Loriaux et al., 2006; Harbinson, 2013; Loriaux et al., 2013). Sub-saturating light pulses result in the underestimation of Fm′; however, the degree of underestimation depends not only on the saturating pulse spectra and intensity, but also on the species, the growth light intensity, and the light intensity used during the measurements (Earl and Ennahli, 2004). Here, we show how a given Fm′ underestimation influences the values for VO/VC (Fig. 4). To do so, equation 8 was set to physiologically realistic conditions (RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC=0.2, and A=5 μmol m–2 s–1), at different Y(II) values. Underestimates of Fm′ were then introduced by multiplying the realistic Fm′ value by, successively, 0.99 (–1%), 0.98 (–2%), 0.97 (–3%), and 0.95 (–5%). The difference between the two values represented the effect of Fm′ underestimation on VO/VC. Figure 4 shows that VO/VC was sensitive to Fm′ underestimation; for instance the relative error of VO/VC was c. 20% when Y(II) was 0.15 and Fm′ was underestimated by 3%. The error increased hyperbolically at decreasing Y(II), and increased proportionally as the Fm′ underestimation was increased. Fig. 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Sensitivity to errors in the determination of Fm′. True values were simulated by calculating equation 8 for RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC=0.2 and A=5 μmol m–2 s–1 at different Y(II) values. Test values of VO/VC were then calculated by solving equation 8 introducing increasing Fm′ underestimation: –1, –2, –3, and –5%. The difference in VO/VC between the test minus the true value was expressed as relative to the true value. Fig. 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Sensitivity to errors in the determination of Fm′. True values were simulated by calculating equation 8 for RLIGHT=1 μmol m–2 s–1, VO/VC=0.2 and A=5 μmol m–2 s–1 at different Y(II) values. Test values of VO/VC were then calculated by solving equation 8 introducing increasing Fm′ underestimation: –1, –2, –3, and –5%. The difference in VO/VC between the test minus the true value was expressed as relative to the true value. Light intensity and CO2 concentration used for experimentation High light intensities (e.g. PPFD>1000 μmol m–2 s–1) result in a low PSII yield, which may potentially amplify the systematic error from any Fm′ underestimation (see above). Similarly, small Y(II) could potentially lead to VO/VC underestimation when the allocation to alternative sinks is significant (see description of equation 7). Further, high light conditions require longer timescales to reach stable photosynthetic conditions. On the other hand, depending on growth conditions, low light intensities (e.g. <100 μmol m–2 s–1) might lead to low assimilation rates, which could amplify the systematic errors in the estimation of RLIGHT (see Fig. 3 and above). For these reasons, intermediate light intensities represent the best solution, whereby Y(II) and A are both high. For instance, values at the top end of the linear region of the light response curve would be ideal. These generally correspond to the growth light intensity. CO2 concentration in the cuvette (Ca) can be used to manipulate photorespiration. Figure 2 shows the measured and predicted VO/VC of C3 and C4 plants under different CO2 concentrations. Because of the CCM, VO/VC is low in maize, even at low Ci, whereas in wheat VO/VC increases hyperbolically at decreasing Ci. This contrasting behaviour allows the resolution of the method to be manipulated by changing the CO2 concentration in the background gas. However, decreasing CO2 concentration is disadvantageous because: (i) low Ci results in quenching of PSII yield, which may potentially amplify the systematic error determined by Fm′ underestimation (see above); at the same time (ii) low Y(II) would amplify the magnitude of VO/VC underestimation owing to the partitioning of Y(II) to alternative sinks (see description of equation 7); (iii) under low Ca, more time is required to reach stable photosynthetic conditions, which result in lower throughput; (iv) low Ca increases the driving force for diffusion from outside of the cuvette, which may constitute a potential source of error, especially when assimilation is low (Boesgaard et al., 2013). For these reasons the optimal Ca will depend on the purpose of the analysis, and on the desired resolution and speed. Discussion This method is based upon the difference in net assimilation (A) and photosystem II yield (Y(II)) observed when the gas supplied to an actively photosynthesizing leaf is switched from ambient O2 to low O2. The goal was to develop a relatively quick, readily available method, which could be used to screen large numbers of transformants, C3–C4, C2, or photorespiratory refixation variants (Busch et al 2013; Oakley et al., 2014) in a given population of plants. The data show that the method readily distinguishes between VO/VC for typical C3 and C4 plants (Table 2), and, given the low coefficients of variation, should detect more subtle variations in C4 repression or activation within a screen. It would then be possible to subject plants identified in this way to a more detailed, conventional gas exchange or stable isotope screen, to identify contributory morphological, metabolic or genetic factors. In the subsequent discussion, we explore the theoretical and practical limitations underpinning the accuracy of the method, and improvements that could be instituted to enhance the outputs, if high sample throughput was not a primary limitation. Other methods have been proposed to determine the contribution of photorespiration in vivo through gas exchange measurements. The method proposed by Ripley et al. (2007) uses only the increase in assimilation under non-photorespiratory conditions, and therefore ignores the effect on Y(II). In our work we observed that Y(II) is generally influenced by changes in O2 concentration (Figure 1), even in C4 plants (see Fig. 2 in Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014b); therefore it is important to take into account the feedback from assimilation on photosystem II yield. Long and Bernacchi (Long and Bernacchi, 2003) proposed a comprehensive method to determine the partitioning of total electron transport rate between photorespiratory and assimilatory demand. Their protocol requires an initial light or A/Ci response so as to fit a linear relationship between quantum yield for CO2 fixation Y(CO2) and quantum yield of photosystem II, Y(II). In comparison, the simple method that we have proposed requires no previous parameterization, no curve fitting, and no knowledge of the underpinning physiology or biochemical constants. It is also independent of leaf area, as when deriving VO/VC from equation 8, both the numerator and the denominator are proportional to leaf area, a huge advantage for small or dissected leaves. The likelihood of triose phosphate limitation (Sharkey, 1988) is minimized under the relatively low light intensities and low Ci, which are optimal for this protocol. The determination of VO/VC could take as little as c. 6min, although the complete routine was longer (c. 40min) as leaves were allowed to acclimate before measurement of both assimilation and dark respiration. Therefore, the run time can be minimized by measuring assimilation under growth conditions (e.g. at growth light intensity and CO2 concentration), and either measuring respiration after all plants have been collectively dark–adapted, or estimating it separately (see below). Other factors affecting accuracy of VO/VC determination As shown in Fig. 3, the estimation of RLIGHT is important when calculating gross assimilation using eqn. 8 (GA=A+RLIGHT) at low assimilation rates. RLIGHT can be determined with several methods; for instance, by linear regression of assimilation (A) versus irradiance (under very low irradiance e.g. <150 μmol photons m–2 s–1), by linear regression of A versus irradiance multiplied by Y(II) [under moderate irradiance, e.g. <400 μmol photons m–2 s–1 (Yin et al., 2011a)], by non-linear regression [throughout the light response curve (Prioul and Chartier, 1977; Dougherty et al., 1994)] or assumed to equal dark respiration [e.g. (Kromdijk et al., 2010; Ubierna et al., 2013)]. These methods do not necessarily yield the same RLIGHT values, and so, the degree of similarity between different RLIGHT estimates depends on the species and growth conditions. For instance, in Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L., Asteraceae), RLIGHT was significantly different from dark respiration (Tcherkez et al., 2008), whereas in maize RLIGHT is generally non-significantly different from dark respiration (C. Bellasio, unpublished data). The most suitable method to estimate RLIGHT should therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (see Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014a), and for a uniform population (e.g. one species or set of transformants in a growth chamber), RLIGHT could be estimated on a subset of individuals, with one of the methods described above. If dark respiration is used as a proxy, the quality of the estimate can be increased using large chambers and low flow rates. In a diverse population, RLIGHT could be estimated by measuring dark respiration on each individual plant after the measurements in the light. As shown in Fig. 3, errors in the determination of Fm′ suggest that techniques such as the multiphase flash (Loriaux et al., 2013), or initial checks to ensure that the saturating pulse is saturating (see Bellasio and Griffiths, 2014b) are normally appropriate for this method. However, the use of our method is possible without a multiphase flash. Firstly, the underestimation of Fm′ introduces a systematic error, i.e. comparable plants will normally show similar VO/VC (see Bellasio et al., 2014), unless the extent of C4 or C2 activity has changed under these conditions. Thus, the precision and the resolution of the method, when comparing different phenotypes against a common genetic background, are not affected by a consistent underestimation of Fm′. Secondly, to improve accuracy, i.e. the capacity of the method to estimate the true VO/VC, other approaches could: (i) increase the saturating pulse intensity; (ii) reduce the distance between light source or fibre-optic probe and leaf (in some systems); (iii) decrease actinic light intensity (as shown in this study) to maximise Y(II); and (iv) CO2 concentration can be increased, in order to maximise Y(II). IRGA recalibration, matching Y(II), Ci, and consideration of mesophyll conductance As mentioned in the results, a slight effect on stomatal conductance and Ci (under low O2) could have been caused by not recalibrating the IRGA upon switching background gas (Bunce, 2002). Although that recalibration could have increased Ci and gS accuracy (under low O2), this procedure is liable to introduce operator error and extend the time taken for measurements; further, there are theoretical reasons why we need not account for these processes while carrying out such a simple comparative screen. Firstly, the data used to calculate equation 8 are measured by the CO2 channel of the IRGA and the fluorometer, which are both unaffected by the background gas (Bunce, 2002). Secondly, the effect of Ci on A (under low O2) is, for the greatest part, accounted by the feedback on Y(II). Although Ci decreases under low O2, there is a strong feedback between assimilation and Y(II), and therefore Y(II) decreases proportionally. In fact, the relationship between gross assimilation (or, better, between Y(CO2), which is GA divided by PPFD) and Y(II) is strictly linear (Edwards and Baker, 1993; Valentini et al., 1995; Martins et al., 2013). In C4 plants, this linear relationship has generally a zero intercept, (Edwards and Baker, 1993); therefore, for C4 plants, there is no need for curve fitting and the relationship can be correctly estimated with a single point. In C3 systems this relationship is still linear but the intercept is, although generally small, not zero. The intercept, which is the magnitude of engagemant of alternative sinks, can be estimated by linear curve fitting, although several data points are required (Valentini et al., 1995; Martins et al., 2013). Using the complete fitting of the Y(CO2)/Y(II) relationship, however, did not improve the estimate of VO/VC (data not shown): the complete curve fitting correctly estimates the intercept, but the datapoints are taken under conditions which differ from those under which VO/VC is measured. Another way to improve the estimate of VO/VC would be to adjust Ca under low O2 so as to match Y(II) measured under ambient O2 with Y(II) measured under low O2. Alternatively, Ca could be manipulated to deliver Ci under low O2, which matches that under ambient. The advantages would be that the measured data would then probably fit the predicted C3 and C4 models more precisely when Ci is limiting (see Fig. 2, Tables 3 and 4). However, these operations do not improve the capacity to screen between C3 and C4 photosynthesis and the additional manipulations increase time and likelihood of errors. We also note that such improvements would allow this method to be used to calculate the CO2 concentration at the site of carboxylation (CC) in C3 plants through equation 11 (Table 3), as well as mesophyll conductance via equation 10, using CC, and the values for assimilation and Ci measured under ambient conditions. Conclusion In this paper a simple method, and associated theory, have been presented, which allow the determination of both the oxygenation (VO) and carboxylation (VC) rate of RuBisCO and the rate of photorespiratory CO2 evolution (F) based on gas exchange and variable chlorophyll fluorescence under ambient and low O2. This may be of particular interest for high throughput screening to identify C4 mutants lacking a fully functional CCM, C2 variants, or populations of C3–C4 hybrids (Oakley et al., 2014). Acknowledgments We thank Shu-Yi Yang, Ross Dennis, Chris John for plants, as well as EU FP7 Marie Curie ITN Harvest, grant no. 238017, the Cambridge Philosophical Society (HG and CB), and the BBSRC (JMH and SJB) for funding. The authors have no conflict of interest. References Badger MR . 1985 . Photosynthetic oxygen exchange . Annual Review of Plant Physiology 36 , 27 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bellasio C Fini A Ferrini F. 2014 . Evaluation of a high throughput starch analysis optimised for wood . Plos ONE 9 , e86645 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Bellasio C Griffiths H. 2014a . Acclimation of C4 metabolism to low light in mature maize leaves could limit energetic losses during progressive shading in a crop canopy . Journal of Experimental Botany 65 , 3725 – 3736 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bellasio C Griffiths H. 2014b . Acclimation to low light by C4 maize: Implications for bundle sheath leakiness . Plant Cell and Environment 37 , 1046 – 1058 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bellasio C Griffiths H. 2014c . The operation of two decarboxylases (NADPME and PEPCK), transamination and partitioning of C4 metabolic processes between mesophyll and bundle sheath cells allows light capture to be balanced for the maize C4 pathway . Plant Physiology 164 , 466 – 480 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Boesgaard KS Mikkelsen TN Ro-Poulsen H Ibrom A. 2013 . Reduction of molecular gas diffusion through gaskets in leaf gas exchange cuvettes by leaf-mediated pores . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 1352 – 1362 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bräutigam A Kajala K Wullenweber Jet al. . 2011 . An mRNA blueprint for C4 photosynthesis derived from comparative transcriptomics of closely related C3 and C4 species . Plant Physiology 155 , 142 – 156 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Bunce J . 2002 . Sensitivity of infrared water vapor analyzers to oxygen concentration and errors in stomatal conductance . Photosynthesis Research 71 , 273 – 276 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Busch FA Sage TL Cousins AB Sage RF. 2013 . C3 plants enhance rates of photosynthesis by reassimilating photorespired and respired CO2 . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 200 – 212 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Cernusak LA Ubierna N Winter K Holtum JAM Marshall JD Farquhar GD. 2013 . Environmental and physiological determinants of carbon isotope discrimination in terrestrial plants . New Phytologist 200 , 950 – 965 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Chang Y-M Liu W-Y Shih AC-C Shen M-N Lu C-H Lu M-YJ Yang H-W Wang T-Y Chen SC-C Chen SM. 2012 . Characterizing regulatory and functional differentiation between maize mesophyll and bundle sheath cells by transcriptomic analysis . Plant Physiology 160 , 165 – 177 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Dodd AN Borland AM Haslam RP Griffiths H Maxwell K. 2002 . Crassulacean acid metabolism: plastic, fantastic . Journal of Experimental Botany 53 , 569 – 580 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Dougherty RL Bradford JA Coyne PI Sims PL. 1994 . Applying an empirical model of stomatal conductance to three C4 grasses . Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 67 , 269 – 290 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Earl H Ennahli S. 2004 . Estimating photosynthetic electron transport via chlorophyll fluorometry without Photosystem II light saturation . Photosynthesis Research 82 , 177 – 186 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Eckardt NA . 2005 . Photorespiration revisited . The Plant Cell 17 , 2139 – 2141 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Edwards GE Baker NR. 1993 . Can CO2 assimilation in maize leaves be predicted accurately from chlorophyll fluorescence analysis . Photosynthesis Research 37 , 89 – 102 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Ehleringer J Pearcy RW. 1983 . Variation in quantum yield for CO2 uptake among C3 and C4 plants . Plant Physiology 73 , 555 – 559 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Ethier GJ Livingston NJ. 2004 . On the need to incorporate sensitivity to CO2 transfer conductance into the Farquhar-von Caemmerer-Berry leaf photosynthesis model . Plant, Cell and Environment 27 , 137 – 153 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Evans JR Sharkey TD Berry JA Farquhar GD. 1986 . Carbon isotope discrimination measured concurrently with gas-exchange to investigate CO2 diffusion in leaves of higher plants . Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13 , 281 – 292 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Genty B Briantais JM Baker NR. 1989 . The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron-transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence . Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 990 , 87 – 92 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gowik U Bräutigam A Weber KL Weber APM Westhoff P. 2011 . Evolution of C4 photosynthesis in the genus Flaveria: How many and which genes does it take to make C4? The Plant Cell Online 23 , 2087 – 2105 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Griffiths H Weller G Toy LFM Dennis RJ. 2013 . You're so vein: bundle sheath physiology, phylogeny and evolution in C3 and C4 plants . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 249 – 261 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gupta KJ Zabalza A Van Dongen JT. 2009 . Regulation of respiration when the oxygen availability changes . Physiologia Plantarum 137 , 383 – 391 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Harbinson J . 2013 . Improving the accuracy of chlorophyll fluorescence measurements . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 1751 – 1754 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hibberd JM Covshoff S. 2010 . The regulation of gene expression required for C4 photosynthesis . Annual Review of Plant Biology 61 , 181 – 207 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Hibberd JM Sheehy JE Langdale JA. 2008 . Using C4 photosynthesis to increase the yield of rice—rationale and feasibility . Current Opinion in Plant Biology 11 , 228 – 231 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat John CR Smith-Unna RD Woodfield H Hibberd JM. 2014 . Evolutionary convergence of cell specific gene expression in independent lineages of C4 grasses . Plant Physiology doi: 10. 1104/pp.114.238667 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Kanai R Edwards GE. 1999 . The biochemistry of C4 photosynthesis . In: Sage RF Monson RK, eds. C4 plant biology . San Diego : Academic Press , 49 – 88 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Kramer D Johnson G Kiirats O Edwards G. 2004 . New fluorescence parameters for the determination of QA redox state and excitation energy fluxes . Photosynthesis Research 79 , 209 – 218 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Kromdijk J Griffiths H Schepers HE. 2010 . Can the progressive increase of C4 bundle sheath leakiness at low PFD be explained by incomplete suppression of photorespiration? Plant, Cell and Environment 33 , 1935 – 1948 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Laisk A Edwards GE. 2000 . A mathematical model of C4 photosynthesis: The mechanism of concentrating CO2 in NADP-malic enzyme type species . Photosynthesis Research 66 , 199 – 224 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Laisk A Oja V Rasulov B Ramma H Eichelmann H Kasparova I Pettai H Padu E Vapaavuori E. 2002 . A computer-operated routine of gas exchange and optical measurements to diagnose photosynthetic apparatus in leaves . Plant, Cell and Environment 25 , 923 – 943 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Langdale JA . 2011 . C4 cycles: Past, present, and future research on C4 photosynthesis . The Plant Cell Online 23 , 3879 – 3892 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Li P Ponnala L Gandotra N Wang L Si Y Tausta SL Kebrom TH Provart N Patel R Myers CR. 2010 . The developmental dynamics of the maize leaf transcriptome . Nature Genetics 42 , 1060 – 1067 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Long SP Bernacchi CJ. 2003 . Gas exchange measurements, what can they tell us about the underlying limitations to photosynthesis? Procedures and sources of error . Journal of Experimental Botany 54 , 2393 – 2401 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Loriaux S Burns R Welles J McDermitt D Genty B. 2006 . Determination of maximal chlorophyll fluorescence using a multiphase single flash of sub-saturating intensity . American Society of Plant Biologists Annual Meeting . Boston, MA. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Loriaux SD Avenson TJ Welles JM McDermitt DK Eckles RD Riensche B Genty B. 2013 . Closing in on maximum yield of chlorophyll fluorescence using a single multiphase flash of sub-saturating intensity . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 1755 – 1770 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Martins SCV Galmés J Molins A DaMatta FM. 2013 . Improving the estimation of mesophyll conductance to CO2: on the role of electron transport rate correction and respiration . Journal of Experimental Botany 64 , 3285 – 3298 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Maxwell K Johnson GN. 2000 . Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide . Journal of Experimental Botany 51 , 659 – 668 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Meyer M Seibt U Griffiths H. 2008 . To concentrate or ventilate? Carbon acquisition, isotope discrimination and physiological ecology of early land plant life forms . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363 , 2767 – 2778 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Oakley JC Sultmanis S Stinson CR Sage TL Sage RF. 2014 . Comparative studies of C3 and C4Atriplex hybrids in the genomics era: physiological assessments . Journal of Experimental Botany 7 , 3637 – 3647 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Osborne CP Sack L. 2012 . Evolution of C4 plants: a new hypothesis for an interaction of CO2 and water relations mediated by plant hydraulics . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 367 , 583 – 600 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Owen NA Griffiths H. 2013 . A system dynamics model integrating physiology and biochemical regulation predicts extent of crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) phases . New Phytologist 200 , 1116 – 1131 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Pearcy RW Ehleringer J. 1984 . Comparative ecophysiology of C3 and C4 plants . Plant, Cell and Environment 7 , 1 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Pengelly JJL Sirault XRR Tazoe Y Evans JR Furbank RT von Caemmerer S. 2010 . Growth of the C4 dicot Flaveria bidentis: photosynthetic acclimation to low light through shifts in leaf anatomy and biochemistry . Journal of Experimental Botany 61 , 4109 – 4122 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Pick TR Brautigam A Schluter Uet al. . 2011 . Systems analysis of a maize leaf developmental gradient redefines the current C4 model and provides candidates for regulation . Plant Cell 23 , 4208 – 4220 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Prioul JL Chartier P. 1977 . Partitioning of transfer and carboxylation components of intracellular resistance to photosynthetic CO2 fixation: A critical analysis of the methods used . Annals of Botany 41 , 789 – 800 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ripley BS Gilbert ME Ibrahim DG Osborne CP. 2007 . Drought constraints on C4 photosynthesis: stomatal and metabolic limitations in C3 and C4 subspecies of Alloteropsis semialata . Journal of Experimental Botany 58 , 1351 – 1363 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Sage RF . 2004 . The evolution of C4 photosynthesis . New Phytologist 161 , 341 – 370 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Sage RF Christin P-A Edwards EJ. 2011 . The C4 plant lineages of planet Earth . Journal of Experimental Botany 62 , 3155 – 3169 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Sage RF Sage TL Kocacinar F. 2012 . Photorespiration and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis . Annual Review of Plant Biology 63 , 19 – 47 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Sharkey TD . 1988 . Estimating the rate of photorespiration in leaves . Physiologia Plantarum 73 , 147 – 152 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tcherkez G Bligny R Gout E Mahé A Hodges M Cornic G. 2008 . Respiratory metabolism of illuminated leaves depends on CO2 and O2 conditions . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 , 797 – 802 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ubierna N Sun W Kramer DM Cousins AB. 2013 . The efficiency Of C4 photosynthesis under low light conditions in Zea Mays, Miscanthus × Giganteus and Flaveria Bidentis . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 365 – 381 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Valentini R Epron D De Angelis P Matteucci G Dreyer E. 1995 . In situ estimation of net CO2 assimilation, photosynthetic electron flow and photorespiration in Turkey oak (Q. cerris L.) leaves: diurnal cycles under different levels of water supply . Plant, Cell and Environment 18 , 631 – 640 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat von Caemmerer S . 2000 . Biochemical models of leaf Photosynthesis . Collingwood : CSIRO Publishing . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC von Caemmerer S . 2013 . Steady-state models of photosynthesis . Plant, Cell and Environment 36 , 1617 – 1630 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat von Caemmerer S Ghannoum O Pengelly JJL Cousins AB. 2014 . Carbon isotope discrimination as a tool to explore C4 photosynthesis . Journal of Experimental Botany . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Wang P Kelly S Fouracre JP Langdale JA. 2013 . Genome-wide transcript analysis of early maize leaf development reveals gene cohorts associated with the differentiation of C4 Kranz anatomy . The Plant Journal 75 , 656 – 670 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Yin X Struik PC. 2009 . C3 and C4 photosynthesis models: An overview from the perspective of crop modelling . Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 57 , 27 – 38 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yin X Struik PC Romero P Harbinson J Evers JB Van Der Putten PEL Vos JAN. 2009 . Using combined measurements of gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence to estimate parameters of a biochemical C3 photosynthesis model: a critical appraisal and a new integrated approach applied to leaves in a wheat (Triticum aestivum) canopy . Plant, Cell and Environment 32 , 448 – 464 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yin X Sun Z Struik PC Gu J. 2011a . Evaluating a new method to estimate the rate of leaf respiration in the light by analysis of combined gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence measurements . Journal of Experimental Botany 62 , 3489 – 3499 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yin X Van Oijen M Schapendonk A. 2004 . Extension of a biochemical model for the generalized stoichiometry of electron transport limited C3 photosynthesis . Plant, Cell and Environment 27 , 1211 – 1222 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yin XY Struik PC. 2012 . Mathematical review of the energy transduction stoichiometries of C4 leaf photosynthesis under limiting light . Plant, Cell and Environment 35 , 1299 – 1312 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yin XY Sun ZP Struik PC Van der Putten PEL Van Ieperen W Harbinson J. 2011b . Using a biochemical C4 photosynthesis model and combined gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence measurements to estimate bundle-sheath conductance of maize leaves differing in age and nitrogen content . Plant, Cell and Environment 34 , 2183 – 2199 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yoshimura Y Kubota F Ueno O. 2004 . Structural and biochemical bases of photorespiration in C4 plants: quantification of organelles and glycine decarboxylase . Planta 220 , 307 – 317 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology.
TI - A high throughput gas exchange screen for determining rates of photorespiration or regulation of C4 activity
JF - Journal of Experimental Botany
DO - 10.1093/jxb/eru238
DA - 2014-07-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/a-high-throughput-gas-exchange-screen-for-determining-rates-of-0vXaO00qe7
SP - 3769
EP - 3779
VL - 65
IS - 13
DP - DeepDyve
ER -