S-236 Chapter 19 Oxidative Phosphorylation and Photophosphorylation
In 1944, Emerson, Stauffer, and Umbreit proposed that “the function of light energy in photosyn-
thesis is the formation of ‘energy-rich’ phosphate bonds” (p. 107). In their model (hereafter, the
“Emerson model”), the free energy necessary to drive both CO
2
fixation and reduction came from
these “energy-rich phosphate bonds” (i.e., ATP), produced as a result of light absorption by a chloro-
phyll-containing protein.
This model was explicitly rejected by Rabinowitch (1945). After summarizing Emerson and coau-
thors’ findings, Rabinowitch stated: “Until more positive evidence is provided, we are inclined to con-
sider as more convincing a general argument against this hypothesis, which can be derived from en-
ergy considerations. Photosynthesis is eminently a problem of energy accumulation. What good can
be served, then, by converting light quanta (even those of red light, which amount to about 43 kcal per
Einstein) into ‘phosphate quanta’ of only 10 kcal per mole? This appears to be a start in the wrong
direction—toward dissipation rather than toward accumulation of energy” (Vol. I, p. 228). This argu-
ment, along with other evidence, led to the abandonment of the Emerson model until the 1950s, when
it was found to be correct—albeit in a modified form.
For each piece of information from Emerson and coauthors’ article presented in (a) through (d)
below, answer the following three questions:
1. How does this information support the Emerson model, in which light energy is used directly by
chlorophyll to make ATP, and the ATP then provides the energy to drive CO
2
fixation and
reduction?
2. How would Rabinowitch explain this information, based on his model (and most other models of
the day), in which light energy is used directly by chlorophyll to make reducing compounds?
Rabinowitch wrote: “Theoretically, there is no reason why all electronic energy contained in
molecules excited by the absorption of light should not be available for oxidation-reduction” (Vol. I,
p. 152). In this model, the reducing compounds are then used to fix and reduce CO
2
, and the en-
ergy for these reactions comes from the large amounts of free energy released by the reduction
reactions.
3. How is this information explained by our modern understanding of photosynthesis?
(a) Chlorophyll contains a Mg
2
ion, which is known to be an essential cofactor for many enzymes
that catalyze phosphorylation and dephosphorylation reactions.
(b) A crude “chlorophyll protein” isolated from photosynthetic cells showed phosphorylating activity.
(c) The phosphorylating activity of the “chlorophyll protein” was inhibited by light.
(d) The levels of several different phosphorylated compounds in photosynthetic cells changed dra-
matically in response to light exposure. (Emerson and coworkers were not able to identify the
specific compounds involved.)
As it turned out, the Emerson and Rabinowitch models were both partly correct and partly
incorrect.
(e) Explain how the two models relate to our current model of photosynthesis.
In his rejection of the Emerson model, Rabinowitch went on to say: “The difficulty of the phos-
phate storage theory appears most clearly when one considers the fact that, in weak light, eight or ten
quanta of light are sufficient to reduce one molecule of carbon dioxide. If each quantum should pro-
duce one molecule of high-energy phosphate, the accumulated energy would be only 80–100 kcal per
Einstein—while photosynthesis requires at least 112 kcal per mole, and probably more, because of
losses in irreversible partial reactions” (Vol. 1, p. 228).
(f) How does Rabinowitch’s value of 8 to 10 photons per molecule of CO
2
reduced compare with the
value accepted today? You need to consult Chapter 20 for some of the information required here.
(g) How would you rebut Rabinowitch’s argument, based on our current knowledge about photosyn-
thesis?