Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Conformational gating of the electron transfer reaction Q A − ⋅ Q B → Q A Q B − ⋅ in bacterial reaction centers of Rhodobacter sphaeroides determined by a driving force assay

Open access
Graige, M. S., Feher, G., Okamura, M. Y.·1998·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The mechanism of the electron transfer reaction, Q A − ⋅ Q B → Q A Q B − ⋅ , was studied in isolated reaction centers from the photosynthetic bacterium Rhodobacter sphaeroides by replacing the native Q 10 in the Q A binding site with quinones having different redox potentials. These substitutions are expected to change the intrinsic electron transfer rate by changing the redox free energy (i.e., driving force) for electron transfer without affecting other events that may be associated with the electron transfer (e.g., protein dynamics or protonation). The electron transfer from Q A − ⋅ to Q B was measured by three independent methods: a functional assay involving cytochrome c 2 to measure the rate of Q A − ⋅ oxidation, optical kinetic spectroscopy to measure changes in semiquinone absorption, and kinetic near-IR spectroscopy to measure electrochromic shifts that occur in response to electron transfer. The results show that the rate of the observed electron transfer from Q A − ⋅ to Q B does not change as the redox free energy for electron transfer is varied over a range of 150 meV. The strong temperature dependence of the observed rate rules out the possibility that the reaction is activationless. We conclude, therefore, that the independence of the observed rate on the driving force for electron transfer is due to conformational gating, that is, the rate limiting step is a conformational change required before electron transfer. This change is proposed to be the movement, controlled kinetically either by protein dynamics or intermolecular interactions, of Q B by ≈5 Å as observed in the x-ray studies of Stowell et al. [Stowell, M. H. B., McPhillips, T. M., Rees, D. C., Soltis, S. M., Abresch, E. & Feher, G. (1997) Science 276, 812–816].

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.95.20.11679

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Graige, M. S., Feher, G., & Okamura, M. Y.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1998-09-29
Volume
95
Issue
20
Pages
11679-11684
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2062504397
Cited by
195
References
0
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conformational gating of the electron transfer reaction Q A − ⋅ Q B → Q A Q B − ⋅ in bacterial reaction centers of Rhodobacter sphaeroides determined by a driving force assay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.95.20.11679
The paper
Graige, M. S., Feher, G., & Okamura, M. Y. (1998). Conformational gating of the electron transfer reaction Q A − ⋅ Q B → Q A Q B − ⋅ in bacterial reaction centers of Rhodobacter sphaeroides determined by a driving force assay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.20.11679

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.