Abstract
The ubiquitous enzyme Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase (RuBisCO) fixes atmospheric carbon dioxide within the Calvin-Benson cycle that is utilized by most photosynthetic organisms. Despite this central role, RuBisCO's efficiency surprisingly struggles, with both a very slow turnover rate to products and also impaired substrate specificity, features that have long been an enigma as it would be assumed that its efficiency was under strong evolutionary pressure. RuBisCO's substrate specificity is compromised as it catalyzes a side-fixation reaction with atmospheric oxygen; empirical kinetic results show a trend to tradeoff between relative specificity and low catalytic turnover rate. Although the dominant hypothesis has been that the active-site chemistry constrains the enzyme's evolution, a more recent study on RuBisCO stability and adaptability has implicated competing selection pressures. Elucidating these constraints is crucial for directing future research on improving photosynthesis, as the current literature casts doubt on the potential effectiveness of site-directed mutagenesis to improve RuBisCO's efficiency. Here we use regression analysis to quantify the relationships between kinetic parameters obtained from empirical data sets spanning a wide evolutionary range of RuBisCOs. Most significantly we found that the rate constant for dissociation of CO2 from the enzyme complex was much higher than previous estimates and comparable with the corresponding catalytic rate constant. Observed trends between relative specificity and turnover rate can be expressed as the product of negative and positive correlation factors. This provides an explanation in simple kinetic terms of both the natural variation of relative specificity as well as that obtained by reported site-directed mutagenesis results. We demonstrate that the kinetic behaviour shows a lesser rather than more constrained RuBisCO, consistent with growing empirical evidence of higher variability in relative specificity. In summary our analysis supports an explanation for the origin of the tradeoff between specificity and turnover as due to competition between protein stability and activity, rather than constraints between rate constants imposed by the underlying chemistry. Our analysis suggests that simultaneous improvement in both specificity and turnover rate of RuBisCO is possible.
Introduction
Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase (RuBisCO) is the enzyme responsible for the fixation of carbon derived from atmospheric CO2 as part of the Calvin-Benson cycle that leads to production of the glucose essential for growth in most photosynthetic organisms. However, RuBisCO has a low turnover rate in higher plants (~3 s−1) and the efficiency of carbon fixation by the enzyme is compromised by a competing reaction with atmospheric O2 that leads to photorespiration at high cost to the organism in terms of both energy and loss of carbon. A recent analysis of kcat and KM values of several thousand enzymes (Bar-Even et al., ) has shown that RuBisCO's catalytic rate, kcat, and efficiency (kcat/KM) are not unusually low compared with values of the “average” enzyme (see their Figure 1), even though much lower than fast enzymes at the diffusion-controlled limit, for a variety of reasons including absence of strong evolutionary selection pressure and substrate properties, especially low molecular mass and hydrophobicity, limiting KM optimization. A later analysis (Bar-Even et al., ) showed that enzyme-substate encounters for the “average” enzyme are not productive(“futile”), again for various reasons. The insights from these analyses are useful in placing RuBisCO's catalytic rate and efficiency in the context of all enzymes, especially the significant dissociation rate for CO2 we find in this work, but nonetheless puzzles remain as RuBisCO has been subject to very strong evolutionary pressure.
Figure 1
To mitigate this apparent torpidity of the enzyme, organisms have co-evolved other strategies for maintaining levels of photosynthesis. The observed large variations in RuBisCO kinetic parameters from photosynthetic organisms in different kingdoms down to different species (Jordan and Ogren,
Cyanobacterial RuBisCOs are characterized by lower values of activity with CO2 relative to that of O2 (the relative specificity, SC/O) and higher catalytic turnover rates (). These organisms utilize a carbon-concentrating mechanism (CCM) which compensates for the lower SC/O and limits photorespiration by increasing the CO2/O2 ratio at the site of fixation, while taking advantage of the higher by reducing RuBisCO concentration and hence the requirement for nitrogen. Some non-green algae with higher SC/O do not express a CCM but instead the lower is mitigated by increasing RuBisCO and, hence, higher investment of nitrogen in RuBisCO protein. In higher plants, the kinetic balances and photosynthetic pathways lie somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. In C3 plants SC/O is generally greater and less than in C4 plants expressing CCMs (Yeoh et al.,
Understanding the nature of constraints imposed on RuBisCO's intrinsic efficiency is important for directing future research on photosynthesis. Study of RuBisCO activity has become a focus for improving photosynthesis (Bainbridge et al.,
In the present study, we argue that this conclusion may have resulted from unsupported assumptions of the kinetic models and limited data sets used in the analyses. Resolving the precise nature of the constraints imposed on RuBisCO kinetics is clearly pivotal to providing direction of future research into improving photosynthesis. The rate constants (Figure 1) determine, and therefore ultimately limit, the physical binding of substrates, the breaking and formation of chemical bonds, and finally the release of products (Lorimer,
Although methods for computing individual rate constants from kinetic data have not been widely implemented for RuBisCO (McNevin et al.,
Table 1
| Species | Ref. | (s−1) | (s−1) | SC/O(mol/mol) | KO (μM) | KC (μM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher plant C3 (Triticum aestivum) | a | 2.5 | 1.45 | 90 | 730 | 14 |
| Higher plant C4-like (Flareria brownie) | b | 2.58 | 0.91 | 83.8 | 378 | 12.8 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria sonorensis) | b | 2.69 | 2.46 | 84.3 | 785 | 10.2 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria ramosissima) | b | 2.77 | 2.09 | 79.8 | 722 | 12.0 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria angustifolia) | b | 2.86 | 83.2 | 13.1 | ||
| Higher plant C3 (Chenopodium alba) | a | 2.91 | 1.37 | 78.7 | 415 | 11.2 |
| Higher plant C3 (Flaveria pringlei) | a | 3.1 | 2.14 | 80.8 | 666 | 12.0 |
| Higher plant C4 (Paspalum dilatatum) | c | 3.11 | 0.74 | 88 | 415 | 19.9 |
| Higher plant C3 (Flaveria cronquistii) | b | 3.13 | 2.34 | 81 | 653 | 10.8 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria floridana) | b | 3.19 | 1.96 | 84.5 | 686 | 13.2 |
| Higher plant C3 (Spinacia oleracea) | b | 3.20 | 1.90 | 79.8 | 574 | 12.1 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria chloraefolia) | b | 3.35 | 2.45 | 81.6 | 740 | 12.4 |
| Higher plant C3 (Nicotiana tabacum) | a | 3.4 | 1.11 | 82 | 295 | 10.7 |
| Higher plant C4 (Cynodon dactylon) | c | 3.41 | 0.73 | 89 | 402 | 21 |
| Higher plant C3-C4 (Flaveria linearis) | b | 3.43 | 1.46 | 78.1 | 415 | 12.5 |
| Higher plant C4-like (Flaveria palmeri) | b | 3.54 | 0.60 | 83.8 | 193 | 13.5 |
| Higher plant C4 (Flaveria kochiana) | b | 3.68 | 0.32 | 77 | 150 | 22.7 |
| Higher plant C3 (Spinacia oleracea) | a | 3.7 | 1.59 | 80 | 480 | 14 |
| Higher plant C4-like (Flaveria vaginata) | b | 3.78 | 1.98 | 78.7 | 880 | 21.4 |
| Higher plant C4 (Zoysia japonica) | c | 3.78 | 0.98 | 84.1 | 403 | 18.5 |
| Higher plant C4 (Amaranthus hybridus) | a | 3.8 | 1.85 | 82 | 640 | 16 |
| Higher plant C4 (Flaveria australasica) | a | 3.84 | 0.70 | 77.2 | 309 | 22.0 |
| Higher plant C4 (Zea mays) | d | 4.05 | 0.32 | 74.9 | 157 | 26.2 |
| Higher plant C4 (Amaranthus edulis) | a | 4.14 | 0.85 | 77.5 | 289 | 18.2 |
| Higher plant C4 (Flaveria bidentis) | b | 4.16 | 1.74 | 75.5 | 639 | 20.2 |
| Higher plant C4 (Zea mays) | a | 4.4 | 1.34 | 78 | 810 | 34 |
| Higher plant C4 (Flaveria trinervia) | b | 4.42 | 2.15 | 77 | 671 | 17.9 |
| Higher plant C4 (Sorghum bicolor) | a | 5.4 | 70 | 30 | ||
| Higher plant C4 (Zea mays) | d | 5.5 | 1.31 | 88 | 397 | 19 |
| Higher plant C4 (Potulaca oleraca) | a | 5.9 | 78 | 13.6 | ||
| Green algae (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) | a | 5.8 | 1.57 | 61 | 480 | 29 |
| Cyanobacteria (Synechococcus 6301) | a | 11.6 | 0.77 | 43 | 972 | 340 |
| Cyanobacteria (Synechococcus 7002) | a | 13.4 | 1.36 | 52 | 1300 | 246 |
| Nongreen algae (Cylindrotheca sp. N1) | e | 0.78 | 106 | 1292 | 31 | |
| Nongreen algae (Olisthodiscus luteus | e | 0.83 | 101 | 692 | 59 | |
| Nongreen algae (Galdieria sulfuraria) | a | 1.2 | 0.82 | 166 | 374 | 3.3 |
| Nongreen algae (Cyanidium caldarium | e | 1.3 | 224 | 6.7 | ||
| Nongreen algae Porphyridium cruentum | e | 1.6 | 129 | 1574 | 22 | |
| Nongreen algae Cyanidium partita | e | 1.6 | 238 | 6.6 | ||
| Nongreen algae Cylindrotheca fusiformis | e | 1.95 | 110 | 568 | 36 | |
| Nongreen algae (Griffithsia monilis) | a | 2.6 | 167 | 9.3 | ||
| Nongreen algae (Phaeodactylum tricornutum) | a | 3.4 | 0.50 | 113 | 467 | 28 |
| Diatom (Bellerochea cf. horologicalis) | d | 2.1 | 764 | 50 | ||
| Diatom (Thalassiosira oceania) | d | 2.4 | 0.44 | 80 | 954 | 65 |
| Diatom (Chaetoceros muelleri) | d | 2.4 | 0.46 | 96 | 425 | 23 |
| Diatom (Chaetoceros calcitrans) | d | 2.6 | 0.75 | 57 | 413 | 25 |
| Diatom (Phaeodactylum tricornutum) | d | 3.2 | 0.49 | 108 | 592 | 36 |
| Diatom (Skeletonema marinoi) | d | 3.2 | 883 | 68 | ||
| Diatom (Thalassiosira weissflogii) | d | 3.2 | 1.27 | 79 | 2032 | 65 |
| Diatom (Phaeodactylum tricornutum) | d | 3.3 | 0.46 | 116 | 664 | 41 |
| Diatom (Chaetoceros calcitrans) | d | 3.4 | 0.72 | 75 | 490 | 31 |
| Diatom (Fragilariopsis cylindrus) | d | 3.5 | 0.47 | 77 | 667 | 64 |
| Diatom (Cylindrotheca fusiformis) | d | 3.7 | 79 | |||
| Bacteria (Chromatium vinosum) | a | 6.7 | 1.28 | 41 | 290 | 37 |
| Bacteria (Rhodospirillum rubrum) | a | 7.3 | 3.01 | 12.3 | 406 | 80 |
RuBisCO kinetic parameters.
Data compiled by Savir et al. (
a Savir et al. (
Our results and conclusions are indicative of a less constrained RuBisCO and are consistent with observed variations in the kinetics of a wider range of wild type and mutant RuBisCO that are now available, although such kinetic data is regrettably still sparse.
Methods
We consider the rate constants ki for the kinetic mechanism (Figure 1) to be a set of general random variables (Koralov and Sinai,
The Generalized Extreme Studentized Deviate (ESD) test (Rosner,
Results
Kinetic equations
In deriving the following kinetic equations for this mechanism (Figure 1) we assumed only that both k10 and k16 are very much smaller than any of the remaining rate constants (effectively, k10 = k16 = 0). We emphasize that no such approximations (ki = 0) were made anywhere else in the derivation. The Michaelis constants (KM) for carboxylation and oxygenation are then given, respectively, by equations of the form (Equations A23, A24; see Appendix in Supplementary Materials for details of derivations)
The general equation for the specificity of carboxylation relative to that of oxygenation (relative specificity) is then (Equation A25).
In Equation (3), the relative specificity (SC/O) is formally a function of 10 rate constants (k5..k9, k11..k15), five for each of the carboxylation and oxygenation reactions. is a function only of rate constants for the enolization step (Equation A22), i.e., independent of carboxylation or oxygenation, and 0 < γ < 1. Both and γC are formally functions of k3, k7, k8 and k9 (Equation A26). It is evident (Equation A26) that if k7 is the slow step that determines the maximum catalytic rate (), then γC = 1. Similarly (Equation A27), if , then γO = 1. However, we need not make these types of assumptions here, and simply regard γCk6 and γOk12 as effective dissociation rate constants.
Michaelis constants
The results of linear regression analysis performed on a number of data sets are summarized in Table 2. The green algae, bacteria and cyanobacteria data in Table 1 and other plant species (Galmés et al.,
Table 2
| Regression | Coefficients | SE | P-value | Lower 95% | Upper 95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other than C3 Plantsa | KC | 15.3 | 3.4 | 0.001 | 7.8 | 22.7 |
| (N = 14, P-value = 0.39) | −0.9 | 1.0 | 0.39 | −3.0 | 1.3 | |
| C3 Plantsa | KC | 4.5 | 1.4 | 0.007 | 1.5 | 7.5 |
| (N = 14, P-value = 0.008) | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.008 | 0.4 | 2.4 | |
| C3 Plantsa,c | KC | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.05 | −0.04 | 10.4 |
| (N = 21, P-value = 0.072) | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.07 | −0.2 | 3.3 | |
| Higher Plantsb | KC | 3.2 | 8.9 | 0.73 | −17.0 | 23.5 |
| (N = 11, P-value = 0.13) | 3.7 | 2.2 | 0.13 | −1.3 | 8.7 | |
| Higher Plantsc | KC | 2.9 | 4.2 | 0.51 | −5.8 | 11.5 |
| (N = 30, P-value = 0.002) | 3.8 | 1.1 | 0.002 | 1.5 | 6.1 | |
| Non-green algaec | KC | 28.6 | 15.0 | 0.10 | −6.8 | 64.0 |
| (N = 9, P-value = 0.66) | −3.7 | 8.0 | 0.66 | −22.5 | 15.2 | |
| Diatomsc | KC | 26.8 | 36.6 | 0.49 | −57.7 | 111 |
| (N = 10, P-value = 0.60) | 6.8 | 12.3 | 0.60 | −21.6 | 35.3 | |
| Triticeaed | KC | 9.8 | 3.2 | 0.03 | 1.6 | 17.9 |
| (N = 7, P-value = 0.15) | 1.8 | 1.1 | 0.15 | −0.9 | 4.6 | |
| Triticeaed | KO | 315 | 35.8 | 0.0003 | 223 | 408 |
| (N = 7, P-value = 0.023) | 138 | 42.6 | 0.02 | 28.5 | 247 | |
| Higher Plantsc (Figure 2C) | KO | 115 | 52.1 | 0.04 | 7.5 | 222 |
| (N = 27, P-value < 10−5) | 278 | 33.1 | <10−5 | 210 | 346 | |
| All Datac (Figure 2A) | ln(KC) | 2.3 | 0.2 | <10−5 | 1.9 | 2.6 |
| (N = 54, P-value < 10−5) | 0.23 | 0.04 | <10−5 | 0.15 | 0.31 | |
| All Datab (Figure 2B) | ln(KC) | 1.5 | 0.2 | <10−5 | 1.1 | 1.9 |
| (N = 19, P-value < 10−5) | 0.34 | 0.03 | <10−5 | 0.27 | 0.40 | |
Linear regressions of KM or ln(KM) on kcat for various data sets of sample size N: Coefficients of y-intercept, KM or ln(KM), and x-variable (gradient), kcat, with standard errors (SE), P-values and 95% (P = 0.05) confidence intervals.
Figure 2

Regression of: (A)KC on using all data (Table 1) in the regression. The parameters of the exponential, , are a1 = 9.7 μM and b1 = 0.23s. (B)KC on using only the data compiled by Savir et al. (
Figure 3

Normal Q-Q standardized plots of residuals for log(KC) (Figures 2A,B), KO (Figure 2C), and the reciprocal relative specificity, (Figure 2D).
Table 3
| Rate constant | γCK6a | γCK6b | γCK6c | γCK12d | γCK12e |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected value | 4.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 2.3 |
| Standard Error | ±0.8 | ±0.3 | ±1.4 | ±0.2 | ±0.8 |
| 95% Confidence Interval | ±1.6 | ±0.6 | ±3.0 | ±0.4 | ±1.9 |
Expected values of dissociation rate constants (s−1) for carboxylation (γCK6) and oxygenation (γCK12) with standard errors and corresponding 95% confidence intervals calculated from coefficients (gradient and intercept) with P < 0.05 in Table 2.
Figure 4

Components of KC if correlation is due to CO2 binding. (A) 〈KRk5〉 Equation (4) calculated assuming a constant value of (Figure 2B, a1 = 4.5 μM, b1 = 0.34 s), and (B) the corresponding components of 〈KC〉, i.e. and Equation (5), derived from Equation (1) (). (B) only is graphed in logarithmic scale.
Therefore, we may also use Equation (4) to define the expected effective dissociation constant conditional on as (Figure 4B).
In Figure 4 it is assumed (Tcherkez et al.,
Figure 5

Components of KC if correlation is due to CO2 dissociation. (A), (from rearranging Equation 4) calculated assuming a constant value of (Figure 2B, a1 = 4.5 μM, b1 = 0.34 s), and (B) the corresponding components of 〈KC〉, i.e., and . Both (A,B) are graphed in logarithmic scale.
For the regression of KO on (Figure 2C), we have included only the data for all higher plants (Table 1). Unlike the above regressions of KC on there are no indications of any deviations from non-linear behavior. The graph of KO on for the higher plants in particular clearly conforms to a linear function, and the residuals of regressed KO data are near normally distributed (Figure 3). From the intercept we find the expected value of the dissociation constant
and from the gradient we obtain the constant
From Equations (6, 7) we estimate the expected value of the effective O2 dissociation rate constant, . Finally, from the above determinations of (from Figure 2B) and we can estimate the expected CO2 to O2 ratio of the rate constants for binding at as .
Relative specificity
The graph of reciprocal relative specificity, , against (Figure 2D) suggests a linear dependence. The residuals of regressed SO/C data are near normally distributed (Figure 3). We first consider the expected value of SC/O conditional on as the reciprocal of the equation for the straight line that describes 〈SO/C〉, i.e.,
where and are the regression parameters (Figure 2D). Although Equation (8) generally provides a good fit to the data (Figure 6), it clearly does not display the correct limiting behavior as approaches zero Equation (3). However, defining the expected value as the ratio and substituting (Figure 2A), the expected value of SC/O conditional on can be written as
Figure 6

Selection of SC/O data from Table 1. The symbols in black are from the compilation of Savir et al. (
As there are no correlations between and (Figure 7A) or KO (Figure 7B), SO is also not correlated (Figure 7C), and so the best possible approximation for Equation (9) takes the form SC/O ∝ SC. The constant in Equation (9) can therefore be estimated by a linear regression of SC/O (excluding the outlier, R. rubrum, Figure 2D) on subject to the constraint SC/O = 0 at to obtain the correct general equation for the expected value of SC/O conditional on as (Figure 6).
Figure 7

Oxygenation parameters. Scatter plots of (A) against (B)KO against and (C) specificity, , against including all data in Table 1. Data points highlighted in green are those compiled by Savir et al. (
Assuming correlation (Figure 2B) arises from CO2 binding, the factor implicit in Equation (10) corresponding to (Figure 6) that is also conditional on is estimated by (Equations 4, 7, Figure 4A).
Mutant example
We use Equation (3) to rationalize the in vitro kinetic data for the Leu to Val mutation at position 335 (L335V) in tobacco (Whitney et al.,
Figure 8

SC/O (Equation 3) plotted against assuming that is constant on the curve (Equation 12). The numbers in parentheses are the values of in Equation (3) that give SC/O = 81.1 mol/mol for wild-type tobacco given CO2 dissociation rate constants of γCk6 = 1, 2, 3 and 4s−1. For the wild type , and for the mutant (Val-335) and SC/O = 20.1mol/mol (Whitney et al.,
We determine the constant factor such that SC/O = 81mol/mol for the wild-type tobacco at the two limits ( and ) for specific values of γCk6 = 1, 2, 3 and 4s−1. Note that in the limit we obtain , while the lower limit for gives SC/O = 0. Noting that , the remaining kinetic parameters [KC = 10.7 μM, , KO = 295 μM for wild type, and KC = 5.1 μM, , KO = 48.9 μM for the mutant] (Whitney et al.,
where Δ is the difference between wild type and mutant.
Discussion
Significant dissociation of CO2 and O2 substrates
The trend lines (Figure 2) clearly intercept the vertical axes well above zero, indicating significant expected values for the dissociation constants γCk6 and γOk12. However, the rate constant for CO2 dissociation has been previously estimated as not more than about 5% of (Pierce et al.,
The tight-binding hypothesis
Assuming decreases with increasing (Equation 11, Figure 6), it could be regarded as a proxy for SC/O (Tcherkez,
Rate constants may not be highly correlated
The deviation of any given data point (Figure 6) from the expected value (Equation 10) can be attributed to variations in the parameters of Equation (3). We expect that SO will generally produce random variations in SC/O (Figure 7C), although, possibly lower k11 (higher KO, Figure 2C) for the cyanobacteria may in part account for a systematic reduction in SC/O. The CO2 dissociation term, γCk6, will certainly become apparent at low enough values (Figures 4, 5). In particular, variations in γCk6 may contribute significantly to the large variance seen in the non-green algae (Figures 2A, 6). If the catalytic rate correlates with k5, regression analysis defines only the first moment, 〈k5〉, of the distribution (Figure 4A and Equation 11, Figure 6), and provides no information on the variance. In the absence of any coupling, mutations produce random changes in the underlying rate constants, ki. Irrespective of whether rate constants are correlated, the expected value of ki is given by where is the value of a rate constant for a given sequence (s). In reality, the composition of the sequence space, Ω (i.e., any number of known sequences), will be determined in varying degrees by genetic drift and natural selection, as these determine the probability that a mutation becomes fixed. If the variations in themselves are entirely random (zero correlation), we might expect both SC/O and at the high end of their observed values, as there is nothing to constrain them and the combined effect should have become fixed in some species by positive selection. The TB hypothesis attempts to explain this absence of both high SC/O and high by positive selection processes occurring within particular constraints (Figures 4A, 6) imposed on the chemical reaction steps (Tcherkez et al.,
Competing selection pressures may constrain RuBisCo
From a biophysical perspective, thermodynamic stability is recognized as the most important constraint on the evolution of proteins and their ability to acquire new function (Tokuriki and Tawfik,
Potential for optimizing carbon fixation
The origin of the constraint(s) has significant implications for the optimization of RuBisCO activity. If the constraint is on Ω (i.e., from competing selection pressures) rather than , greater variability may be exhibited. To what extent the functional limits of RuBisCO are reflected in the minimum and maximum values of kinetic parameters is not yet clear for RuBisCOs with higher because of the absence of empirical data. Much effort has been directed toward research on higher plants with particular emphasis on the evolution of C3 to C4 plants with their associated CCMs, although the recent work on diatoms may now help stimulate investigations into a more diverse range of photosynthetic organisms (Hanson,
Conclusion
The results of our analysis using regression analysis on updated RuBisCO-kinetic data sets suggest that CO2 dissociation from the RuBisCO gas-addition complex is generally more important in rationalizing the observed variations in the kinetics of RuBisCO than hitherto assumed (Tcherkez et al.,
In summary, there is still wide conjecture in the literature regarding the mechanisms by which plants ultimately regulate photosynthesis (Igamberdiev,
Statements
Author contributions
PC, BK, and JG designed and performed the research, wrote the paper and approved it for submission.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank Dr. Andrey Bliznyuk for checking the manuscript and helpful comments. We also acknowledge the Australian NCI (National Computational Infrastructure) for computing support. We thank the reviewers for helpful comments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00183/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AnderssonI. (2008). Catalysis and regulation in Rubisco. J. Exp. Bot.59, 1555–1568. 10.1093/jxb/ern091
2
BadgerM. R.AndrewsT. J. (1987). Co-evolution of rubisco and CO2 concentrating mechanisms, in Progress in Photosynthesis, Research: Vol. 3 Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress on Photosynthesis Providence, Rhode Island, U. S. A., ed BigginsJ. (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 601–609.
3
BadgerM. R.AndrewsT. J.WhitneyS. M.LudwigM.YellowleesD. C.LeggatW.et al. (1998). The diversity and coevolution of Rubisco, plastids, pyrenoids, and chloroplast-based CO2-concentrating mechanisms in algae. Can. J, Bot.76, 1052–1071. 10.1139/b98-074
4
BainbridgeG.MadgwickP.ParmarS.MitchellR.PaulM.PittsJ.et al. (1995). Engineering Rubisco to change its catalytic properties. J. Exp. Bot.46, 1269–1276. 10.1093/jxb/46.special_issue.1269
5
Bar-EvenA.MiloR.NoorE.TawfikD. S. (2015). The moderately efficient enzyme: futile encounters and enzyme floppiness. Biochemistry54, 4969–4977. 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b00621
6
Bar-EvenA.NoorE.SavirY.LiebermeisterW.DavidiD.TawfikD. S.et al. (2011). The moderately efficient enzyme: evolutionary and physicochemical trends shaping enzyme parameters. Biochemistry50, 4402–4410. 10.1021/bi2002289
7
Carmo-SilvaA. E.KeysA. J.AndralojcP. J.PowersS. J.ArrabaçaM. C.ParryM. A. J. (2010). Rubisco activities, properties, and regulation in three different C(4) grasses under drought. J. Exp. Bot.61, 2355–2366. 10.1093/jxb/erq071
8
Carmo-SilvaE.ScalesJ. C.MadgwickP. J.ParryM. A. (2015). Optimizing Rubisco and its regulation for greater resource use efficiency. Plant Cell Environ.38, 1817–1832. 10.1111/pce.12425
9
ClelandW. W.AndrewsT. J.GutteridgeS.HartmanF. C.LorimerG. H. (1998). Mechanism of Rubisco: the carbamate as general base. Chem. Rev.98, 549–562. 10.1021/cr970010r
10
FarquharG. D. (1979). Models describing the kinetics of ribulose biphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.193, 456–468. 10.1016/0003-9861(79)90052-3
11
GalmésJ.KapralovM. V.AndralojcP. J.ConesaM. À.KeysA. J.ParryM. A. J.et al. (2014). Expanding knowledge of the Rubisco kinetics variability in plant species: environmental and evolutionary trends. Plant Cell Environ.37, 1989–2001. 10.1111/pce.12335
12
GhannoumO.EvansJ. R.ChowW. S.AndrewsT. J.ConroyJ. P.von CaemmererS. (2005). Faster rubisco is the key to superior nitrogen-use efficiency in NADP-malic enzyme relative to NAD-malic enzyme C(4) grasses. Plant Physiol.137, 638–650. 10.1104/pp.104.054759
13
GreadyJ. E.KannappanB. (2009). Process for Generation of Protein and Uses Thereof. US patent No 12/422,190. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
14
GriffithsH. (2006). Plant biology: designs on Rubisco. Nature441, 940–941. 10.1038/441940a
15
GutteridgeS.PierceJ. (2006). A unified theory for the basis of the limitations of the primary reaction of photosynthetic CO2 fixation: was Dr. Pangloss right?Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.103, 7203–7204. 10.1073/pnas.0602075103
16
HansonD. T. (2016). Breaking the rules of Rubisco catalysis. J. Exp. Bot.67, 3180–3182. 10.1093/jxb/erw197
17
IgamberdievA. U. (2015). Control of Rubisco function via homeostatic equilibration of CO2 supply. Front. Plant Sci.6:106. 10.3389/fpls.2015.00106
18
JordanD. B.OgrenW. L. (1981). Species variation in the specificity of ribulose biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Nature291, 513–515. 10.1038/291513a0
19
JordanD. B.OgrenW. L. (1983). Species variation in kinetic properties of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.227, 425–433. 10.1016/0003-9861(83)90472-1
20
KannappanB.GreadyJ. E. (2008). Redefinition of Rubisco carboxylase reaction reveals origin of water for hydration and new roles for active-site residues. J. Am. Chem. Soc.130, 15063–15080. 10.1021/ja803464a
21
KoralovL. B.SinaiY. G. (2007). Theory of Probability and Random Processes. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
22
KubienD. S.WhitneyS. M.MooreP. V.JessonL. K. (2008). The biochemistry of Rubisco in Flaveria. J. Exp. Bot.59, 1767–1777. 10.1093/jxb/erm283
23
LorimerG. H. (1981). The carboxylation and oxygenation of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate: the primary events in photosynthesis and photorespiration. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.32, 349–382. 10.1146/annurev.pp.32.060181.002025
24
McNevinD. B.BadgerM. R.WhitneyS. M.von CaemmererS.TcherkezG. G. B.FarquharG. D. (2007). Differences in carbon isotope discrimination of three variants of D-Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase reflect differences in their catalytic mechanisms. J. Biol. Chem.282, 36068–36076. 10.1074/jbc.M706274200
25
McNevinD.von CaemmererS.FarquharG. (2006). Determining RuBisCO activation kinetics and other rate and equilibrium constants by simultaneous multiple non-linear regression of a kinetic model. J. Exp. Bot.57, 3883–3900. 10.1093/jxb/erl156
26
ParryM. A.AndralojcP. J.ScalesJ. C.SalvucciM. E.Carmo-SilvaA. E.AlonsoH.et al. (2013). Rubisco activity and regulation as targets for crop improvement. J. Exp. Bot.64, 717–730. 10.1093/jxb/ers336
27
PeterhanselC.NiessenM.KebeishR. M. (2008). Metabolic engineering towards the enhancement of photosynthesis. Photochem. Photobiol.84, 1317–1323. 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008.00427.x
28
PierceJ.AndrewsT. J.LorimerG. H. (1986). Reaction intermediate partitioning by ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylases with differing substrate specificities. J. Biol. Chem.261, 10248–10256.
29
PrinsA.OrrD. J.AndralojcP. J.ReynoldsM. P.Carmo-SilvaE.ParryM. A. J. (2016). Rubisco catalytic properties of wild and domesticated relatives provide scope for improving wheat photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot.67, 1827–1838. 10.1093/jxb/erv574
30
RobertsD. V. (1977). Enzyme Kinetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
RosnerB. (1983). Percentage points for a generalized ESD many-outlier procedure. Technometrics25, 165–172. 10.1080/00401706.1983.10487848
32
SavirY.NoorE.MiloR.TlustyT. (2010). Cross-species analysis traces adaptation of Rubisco toward optimality in a low-dimensional landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.107, 3475–3480. 10.1073/pnas.0911663107
33
SeemannJ. R.BadgerM. R.BerryJ. A. (1984). Variations in the specific activity of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase between species utilizing differing photosynthetic pathways. Plant Physiol.74, 791–794. 10.1104/pp.74.4.791
34
SikosekT.ChanH. S. (2014). Biophysics of protein evolution and evolutionary protein biophysics. J. R. Soc. Interface11:20140419. 10.1098/rsif.2014.0419
35
StuderR. A.ChristinP. A.WilliamsM. A.OrengoC. A. (2014). Stability-activity tradeoffs constrain the adaptive evolution of RubisCO. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111, 2223–2228. 10.1073/pnas.1310811111
36
TcherkezG. (2013). Modelling the reaction mechanism of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and consequences for kinetic parameters. Plant Cell Environ.36, 1586–1596. 10.1111/pce.12066
37
TcherkezG. (2016). The mechanism of Rubisco-catalysed oxygenation. Plant Cell Environ.39, 983–997. 10.1111/pce.12629
38
TcherkezG. G.FarquharG. D.AndrewsT. J. (2006). Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.103, 7246–7251. 10.1073/pnas.0600605103
39
TokurikiN.TawfikD. S. (2009). Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.19, 596–604. 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003
40
WhitneyS. M.HoutzR. L.AlonsoH. (2011). Advancing our understanding and capacity to engineer nature's CO2-sequestering enzyme, Rubisco. Plant Physiol.155, 27–35. 10.1104/pp.110.164814
41
WhitneyS. M.von CaemmererS.HudsonG. S.AndrewsT. J. (1999). Directed mutation of the Rubisco large subunit of tobacco influences photorespiration and growth. Plant Physiol.121, 579–588. 10.1104/pp.121.2.579
42
YeohH.-H.BadgerM. R.WatsonL. (1980). Variations in KmCO2 of Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase among grasses. Plant Physiol.66, 1110–1112. 10.1104/pp.66.6.1110
43
YoungJ. N.HeureuxA. M.SharwoodR. E.RickabyR. E.MorelF. M.WhitneyS. M. (2016). Large variation in the Rubisco kinetics of diatoms reveals diversity among their carbon-concentrating mechanisms. J. Exp. Bot.67, 3445–3456. 10.1093/jxb/erw163
Summary
Keywords
RuBisCO, carbon fixation, photosynthesis, enzyme kinetics and specificity, protein evolution, evolutionary constraints, enzyme-complex stability, gas-substrate binding
Citation
Cummins PL, Kannappan B and Gready JE (2018) Directions for Optimization of Photosynthetic Carbon Fixation: RuBisCO's Efficiency May Not Be So Constrained After All. Front. Plant Sci. 9:183. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00183
Received
30 August 2017
Accepted
31 January 2018
Published
01 March 2018
Volume
9 - 2018
Edited by
Hartmut Stützel, Leibniz University of Hanover, Germany
Reviewed by
Grant Pearce, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Qiang Wang, Institute of Hydrobiology (CAS), China
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2018 Cummins, Kannappan and Gready.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jill E. Gready jill.gready@anu.edu.au
This article was submitted to Plant Biophysics and Modeling, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.