This two-light effect was the precursor of the concept of the two

This two-light effect was the precursor of the concept of the two-light selleck inhibitor reaction two-pigment system hypothesis. The problem was that the methods used (manometry) could

not distinguish between effects of light on respiration (oxygen uptake) and photosynthesis EX 527 nmr (oxygen evolution). Thus, mass spectroscopy was the only way to know the truth. Our research path and that of Berger crossed here: Using the green alga Chlorella, Mayne and Brown (1963), and Govindjee et al. (1963) showed that the Emerson enhancement effect was in photosynthetic oxygen evolution in spite of the effect of light on respiration. Another method to check if the two-light effect was in photosynthesis NVP-BGJ398 or respiration was to examine this effect in the Hill reaction, where no respiration occurred. Rajni Govindjee et al. (1960) showed clearly the existence of the two-light effect in the quinone-Hill reaction in Chlorella cells. However, Mayne and Brown (1963) could not confirm it; in addition, they did not find a two-light effect in the ferricyanide Hill reaction in chloroplasts, and, thus concluded that ferricyanide and quinone Hill reactions require only a one light reaction. Govindjee and Bazzaz (1967)

were able to reconcile the apparently different results by showing that, depending upon the experimental conditions, ferricyanide can accept electrons from PSII (one light reaction) or from PSI (two light reactions). A similar situation must exist for the quinone Hill reaction, although it is well established that the NADP+-Hill reaction has the two-light effect. Berger was a humble

and peaceful person. He was also very quiet. We know this from several encounters with Berger, including my one visit to his home in Yellow Springs for lunch. One incident that I recall well is the following. At a major conference (International Botanical Congress) in Seattle, Washington, in the 1960 s, Daniel Phosphatidylinositol diacylglycerol-lyase Arnon gave a major plenary lecture where he declared that the NADP+-Hill reaction does not have a two-light effect. When I raised my hand and said that we (my wife Rajni and I) have clearly shown such an effect in collaboration with George Hoch (R. Govindjee et al. 1962, 1964), Daniel Arnon put me down by saying, “You must be using wrong experimental conditions.” I turned to Berger and asked what he thought. He said I see two-light effects all the time in the NADP+-Hill reaction. I requested him to stand up and say that. He said “Govindjee, relax; it is not worth arguing in public; the truth will come out.” He was quiet and peaceful, and he was right.

Comments are closed.