Talk:Anoxygenic photosynthesis

Microbiology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cyclic electron transport, etc

I highly doubt it's the SAME electron that recombines with P840, etc. The hole will likely be filled almost immediately before that electron completes the chain (primary donor should be S or Fe). In fact, it's likely a chain reaction of electron transfers at the appropriate energy levels. Perhaps the simple explanation is more understandable though.

As to the restriction to cyclic electron flow - I believe the terminal electron acceptor is CO2 (after Cytochromes, Quinones and NADPH) so where's the cycle? Perhaps I'm incorrect or missing the point here as well. AFAIK, FAPs can grow photomixotrophically, so they should be able to fix carbon. GSBs definitely should be able to fix carbon - there's no supplied carbon source aside from calcium carbonate (which is just dissolved CO2) in the media.

I don't know if there's an intrinsic restriction on PSII not being able to split water in the absence of PSI. My impression was the little buggers would never want to invest in the extra C-terminal domain protein if it ended up producing a toxin for their growth - most of these guys shy away from oxygen. Additionally, isn't producing oxygen a "waste of energy?" (I'd have to look again at my energy diagrams for delta G/E) There'd be no selective advantage (besides killing your neighbors with oxygen toxicity) to re-inventing the water-splitting wheel. Obviously if they split water into oxygen, they would, by definition no longer be anoxygenic phototrophs.

Pagelm (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]