1985
DOI: 10.1016/0005-2728(85)90061-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of pH on proton transport by bacteriorhodopsin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

1988
1988
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, these data support our previous observation on pH dependence of the microsecond phase amplitude in PM and the bR proteoliposomes [22,23]. Moreover, Ormos et al [28] did not ¢nd any changes in the microsecond components of the photocurrent measured in the oriented purple membrane at 4.5 6 pH 6 10.5. Liu [29], using the same photocurrent method, described a pH dependence of the microsecond component quite similar to ours.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In fact, these data support our previous observation on pH dependence of the microsecond phase amplitude in PM and the bR proteoliposomes [22,23]. Moreover, Ormos et al [28] did not ¢nd any changes in the microsecond components of the photocurrent measured in the oriented purple membrane at 4.5 6 pH 6 10.5. Liu [29], using the same photocurrent method, described a pH dependence of the microsecond component quite similar to ours.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Unexpectedly, the polarity of this photovoltage was opposite to the proton-pumping direction. This result was confirmed by several laboratories measuring photocurrents (Hong and Montal, 1979;Ormos et a/., 1985;Okajima and Hong, 1986) or photovoltages (Skulachev, 1982;Trissl, 1983;Rayfield, 1985;Hristova eta/., 1986;Trissl and Gartner, 1987;Var6 and Bryl, 1988). The amplitude of the signal did not change with temperature in the range 110-300 K (Chamorovskii eta/., 1987;Kononenko eta/., 1987) and persisted upon drying the purple membranes (Kovacs and Dioumaev and Keszthelyi, 1988;Var6 and Bryl, 1988).…”
Section: The Primary Eventmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Some previous reports on the pH independency of some of the kinetic steps in the BR photocycle (e.g., the decay of M) did not include data at high enough pH (Holz et al, 1989). Several reports [e.g., on the increase in the decay rate for M' and the prominent decrease for MS with pH (Ormos et al, 1985;Kouyama et al, 1988)] contain data similar to ours: others are to various extents in conflict (Konishi & Packer, 1978: Hanamoto et al, 1984. When the step in question is identified as the deprotonation or reprotonation of the Schiff base or a protein residue, it is tempting to attribute observed pH effects to the ionization of the proton acceptor or donor groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%