Photosynthetic carbon assimilation in chloroplasts requires NADPH. This is generated by the enzyme ferredoxin:NADP(H) oxidoreductase (FNR) using electrons from ferredoxin (Fd), which is reduced on excitation of photosystem I (PSI) (Shin et al., 1963). The pathway is referred to as ‘linear electron flow’ (LEF) because the electrons originate from water splitting at photosystem II (PSII) and are transferred in a linear progression to PSI via plastoquinone/plastoquinol (PQ/PQH₂) and the cytochrome b₆f complex (Cyt b₆f), pumping protons across the thylakoid membrane (Hill and Bendall, 1960; Mitchell, 1975). Plastocyanin (PC) takes these electrons and re-reduces the oxidised PSI. This proton motive force drives synthesis of ATP, which is also required for carbon fixation among a host of other reactions. FNR shows an extremely high control co-efficient for photosynthetic rate (meaning that changing FNR concentrations strongly influences flux through the pathway) in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum): 0.7 in limiting light and 0.94 in saturating light (Hajirezaei et al., 2002).

Chloroplasts are bounded by an envelope membrane and contain a soluble matrix (the stroma) and an internal membrane (the thylakoid) composed of two distinct domains: stacks of appressed discs known as grana, connected by sheets of membrane called lamellae (Paolillo, 1970; Mustárdy et al., 2008). Apart from the electron shuttling proteins PC and Fd, all components of LEF are unambiguously localised to the thylakoid membrane except FNR, whose location remains controversial.

Although it has been found associated with PSI (Andersen et al., 1992), it is suggested that membrane association is unnecessary for FNR function (Benz et al., 2010). This is because mutation of two, higher plant specific, FNR tethering proteins (Tic62 and TROL) caused all FNR to be soluble but had little impact on LEF (Lintala et al., 2014). Current dogma therefore states that NADP⁺ photoreduction is conducted by soluble FNR, free in the stroma (Benz et al., 2010), and indeed a large proportion of FNR is recovered as a soluble protein after cell fractionation of algae (Mosebach et al., 2017) and higher plants (Hanke et al., 2005; Okutani et al., 2005; Böhme, 1978). Contrary to this theory, FNR enzyme activity increases when the protein is associated with the membrane (Carrillo and Vallejos, 1982; Forti and Bracale, 1984).

PSI can be re-reduced by returning electrons from Fd to PQ, thus pumping protons without generating NADPH. This cyclic electron flow (CEF) protects the photosynthetic machinery when there is an imbalance between the production of excited electrons and their consumption (Huang et al., 2018; Yamori et al., 2016), and regulates the ratio between ATP and NADPH produced (Suorsa et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2014; Munekage et al., 2010; Joliot and Johnson, 2011; Kramer and Evans, 2011). Two CEF pathways have been defined: one is catalysed by a homologue of respiratory complex I called NDH (Burrows et al., 1998; Shikanai et al., 1998; Kofer et al., 1998); the other is defined by its sensitivity to antimycin A, and depends on the Pgr5 (Munekage et al., 2002) and PgrL1 proteins (DalCorso et al., 2008). There are some differences in CEF pathways between angiosperms, which retain the NDH complex, and algae such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii which replace it with an NDH2 type, monomeric complex (Peltier et al., 2016). Curiously, FNR is implicated in the antimycin A sensitive pathway, being found in complex with PgrL1 in the green alga Chlamydomonas (Iwai et al., 2010) and identified as a PgrL1 interaction partner in higher plants (DalCorso et al., 2008). Moreover, pgr5 knockout in Chlamydomonas increases FNR solubilisation (Mosebach et al., 2017). There is also some evidence supporting a function for FNR in higher plant CEF from inhibitor studies (Ravenel et al., 1994; Shahak et al., 1981; Bendall and Manasse, 1995; Mills et al., 1979; Cleland and Bendall, 1992; Ye and Wang, 1997; Hosler and Yocum, 1985), but a definitive mutant study is hampered by the severe phenotype when NADP⁺ reduction is disrupted (Bendall and Manasse, 1995; Lintala et al., 2012).

Higher plant chloroplasts switch rapidly between LEF and CEF in response to environmental conditions (Joliot and Joliot, 2005; Asada et al., 1993) and dynamic transfer of FNR between membrane complexes has been proposed as part of this mechanism (Joliot and Johnson, 2011; Breyton et al., 2006). FNR iso-proteins with variable capacity for membrane association could help to test this hypothesis and have been identified so far in wheat, Arabidopsis, and maize (Hanke et al., 2005; Okutani et al., 2005; Gummadova et al., 2007). Arabidopsis has two FNR iso-proteins (AtFNR1 and AtFNR2), and knock-out of the AtFNR1 gene results in complete solublisation of AtFNR2, indicating cooperativity in membrane association of the two FNR iso-proteins (Hanke et al., 2008; Lintala et al., 2007). Maize has 3 FNR iso-proteins, which are differentially localised between cell types engaging predominantly in CEF or LEF (Twachtmann et al., 2012). Remarkably, when we expressed maize FNRs heterologously in Arabidopsis, they showed specific association with either TROL (ZmFNR1), Tic62 (ZmFNR2), or were soluble (ZmFNR3). For clarity, the properties of the different Arabidopsis and maize FNRs are summarised in Supplementary file 1.

The grana and lamellae domains of the thylakoid vary in protein composition (Andersson and Anderson, 1980), with PSII and its antennae in the appressed grana, and PSI, NDH, and the ATPase restricted to stroma facing regions (Daum et al., 2010). Cyt b₆f is evenly distributed (Allred and Staehelin, 1986). As LEF requires PSI and PSII, it is thought to predominantly occur at border regions, where appressed and stroma facing membranes coincide, bringing the necessary components into proximity (Anderson et al., 2012). By contrast, the CEF components PSI, PgrL1/Pgr5 (Hertle et al., 2013), NDH (Lennon et al., 2003), and Cyt b₆f are all present on the lamellae (Anderson, 1992; Chow et al., 2005). In order to understand whether FNR can act as part of a regulatory switch between LEF and CEF, it is therefore critical to understand (1) where it is located within the chloroplast, (2) how this relates to its interaction with different tether proteins, and (3) how these factors impact on the different electron transport pathways. Fluorescence microscopy with FNR is hampered by difficulties in labelling the protein – the N-terminal is critical for interaction with the membrane (Twachtmann et al., 2012), while the carboxy-group of the C-terminal Tyr is part of the catalytic mechanism (Tejero et al., 2005). In this study we therefore undertook a rigorous immunogold-label (IGL) study on FNR location in Arabidopsis chloroplasts. The data indicate that the enzyme is almost exclusively membrane bound, even in genotypes where it was previously thought to be totally soluble. Moreover, to dissect the connection between interaction, location, and function, we have introduced genes for the different ZmFNR proteins into the fnr1 mutants, creating Arabidopsis plants with approximately wild-type levels of FNR but enriched in specific interactions: either Tic62-bound, TROL-bound, or soluble. The data show that FNR:protein tether interactions change FNR sub-chloroplast distribution and impact on the dominant CEF pathway that occurs during the transition from dark to light.

In order to establish a rigorous protocol for FNR localisation by IGL, we first confirmed our antibodies are highly specific (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Then we performed transmission electron microscopy (TEM) IGL on multiple chloroplasts from one individual. We defined sub-compartments in the chloroplast and calculated the FNR staining density within them as particles per µm² (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). The minimum number of chloroplasts necessary for a statistically sound interpretation was identified using a power analysis of this data in a mixed model test (chosen as a statistical test because the FNR density in different sub-compartments of each chloroplast is related). This was defined as three chloroplasts per individual, but we have analysed 15 to generate additional statistical power (Supplementary file 2a). The distance between a label and its target is influenced by the size of antibodies – meaning a label can potentially be up to 30 nm away from a protein (Hermann et al., 1996). To ensure a conservative estimate of membrane localisation, we therefore defined an area approximately 10 nm either side of the membrane as ‘membrane bound’, and divided chloroplasts into three sub-compartments: stroma, grana core, and combined stromal exposed membranes (lamellae + margins). FNR staining density is five times higher at the lamellae/margin region than in the stroma or the grana core (Figure 1—figure supplement 2), which the mixed model describes as highly significant (Supplementary file 2a). Although FNR-staining in both grana core and stroma is higher than in the cytosol, we consider this density likely originates from FNR at the lamellae/margin region, labelled by antibody oriented such that it extends beyond the defined 10 nm area either side of the TEM visualised membrane. This interpretation is based on the following reasons: (1) FNR cannot enter the grana core, due to spatial restriction, and so grana assignments must originate from antibodies tethered to FNR at the grana margins. (2) There is no statistical difference between staining density in the grana and stroma, meaning that even the low level detected in the stroma is also likely due to the orientation of label attached to membrane associated FNR. (3) Cyt f is also detected at significantly higher density in the stroma than the cytosol by IGL-TEM (Figure 1—figure supplement 2, Supplementary file 2b). Cyt f is part of the Cyt b₆f, an integral membrane protein that is never found in the stroma. Nevertheless, we retained the original 10 nm area to define membrane association, as this appears to detect the great majority of membrane bound proteins. We consider that a small amount of false negative assignments to grana core and stroma are preferable to the risk of false positives associated with extending the membrane assignment zone from 10 to 30 nm. As expected, there is no significant difference in Cyt f staining between different thylakoid domains. Based on this analysis, we conclude that chloroplasts contain very little soluble, stromal FNR.

It has been reported that during some fixation procedures for immunolabelling whole mammalian cells, soluble cytosolic proteins may be disproportionately washed out of samples in comparison to membrane bound proteins (Huebinger et al., 2018). To confirm that this is not the reason for the absence of soluble-localised FNR in our sections, we therefore repeated the experiment to compare several individuals of Wt and fnr1, a genotype in which the remaining FNR (AtFNR2) is 100% soluble following mechanical disruption to extract proteins from leaves (Hanke et al., 2008; Lintala et al., 2007). Again, our analysis shows significantly higher label density of the margins/lamellae than the stroma in both genotypes (Figure 1, Table 1). There is no significant difference between labelling density of stroma and grana core, indicating that there is negligible FNR in the stroma. This result, combined with previous observations that organellar proteins are much less prone to loss during fixation than cytosolic proteins (Schnell et al., 2012), strongly suggests that the FNR distribution we have measured reflects the situation in the native chloroplast. The studies that previously determined completely soluble distribution of FNR in the fnr1 mutant were based on mechanical separation followed by centrifugation. By contrast, our IGL data indicate that in situ almost all FNR is thylakoid associated. The FNR previously assigned as soluble must therefore be associated with the membrane through weak associations that are disrupted during mechanical extraction.

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To try to understand more about the location of tightly bound and weakly associated FNR at the thylakoid, we analysed plants where FNR is localised to different membrane complexes. We exploited genes for three maize FNR proteins (ZmFNR1, ZmFNR2, and ZmFNR3) with variable affinity to the TROL and Tic62 membrane tethers (Twachtmann et al., 2012). These were expressed in the Arabidopsis fnr1 mutant, under control of the Arabidopsis FNR1 promoter – resulting in approximately wild-type FNR protein contents. Western blots to show FNR proteins in these lines are presented in Figure 2. SDS-gels (Figure 2A) separate proteins according to mass, while native gels (Figure 2B) separate proteins according to native charge and retain some strong protein:protein interactions. As previously reported, mechanical separation of supernatant and pellet fractions from fnr1 leaves caused recovery of all FNR in the soluble fraction. We have now termed this ‘weakly bound’ FNR, based on the results in Figure 1. In the fnr1-ZmFNR1 genotype, ZmFNR is recovered in both the weakly bound and the pellet (now termed ‘tightly bound’) fractions. The tightly bound ZmFNR1 is mostly in high molecular weight complexes (Figure 2B) associated with TROL (Figure 2C). Interestingly, when we confirmed the specificity of our TROL antibody, we noted that total TROL abundance partly correlates with the intensity of the BNP band that reacts with both FNR and TROL antisera (Figure 2C), being increased in the fnr1-ZmFNR1 line and decreased in the fnr1, fnr1-ZmFNR2, and fnr1-ZmFNR3 lines (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Heterologously expressed ZmFNR2 is also found in both weakly associated and strongly bound fractions, and its expression results in the rescue of native AtFNR2 recruitment to the tightly bound membrane fraction in the fnr1 genotype (Figure 2A lower band). This lends support to the hypothesis that co-operative interactions with other FNR iso-proteins are necessary to recruit AtFNR2 to Tic62 and TROL tethers (Hanke et al., 2008; Lintala et al., 2009; Lintala et al., 2007). FNR is enriched at Tic62 in this line (Figure 2C). In the fnr1-ZmFNR3 line, nearly all FNR remains weakly associated (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

The plants expressing genes for the maize FNR1, FNR2, and FNR3 iso-proteins in an Arabidopsis fnr1 mutant background (fnr1-ZmFNR1, fnr1-ZmFNR2, and fnr1-ZmFNR3) were then analysed by IGL-TEM (Figure 3). In this case we further divided the staining density of lamellae/margin into separate margin (any stromal facing membrane adjacent to an appressed membrane) and lamellae (all thylakoid membrane not adjacent to appressed membrane) areas. See Figure 1—figure supplement 2 for an example of domain area labelling. We consider this a primarily functional, rather than structural, distinction, as many regions we have classed as margin will not be curved, but should have PSI and PSII in relatively close proximity. We examined the possibility that differences in chloroplast ultrastructure between genotypes might influence our findings, by comparing the relative size of our defined areas between the genotypes (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). We found that the fnr1 mutant shows a small increase in relative stromal area and corresponding decrease in relative margin area. The relative areas of chloroplast sub-compartments did not differ from the Wt in any of the other genotypes. Analysis of FNR staining density in chloroplasts of all genotypes is shown in Figure 3 (statistics in Table 2). Absolute staining density might be influenced by variation in FNR-isoform antigenicity, so we have compared only between sub-chloroplast domains of each genotype. The greatest variation in distribution between genotypes is seen in the density of FNR staining associated with the lamellae (blue boxes in Figure 3). While FNR density in the lamellae region is similar to that at the margin for Wt chloroplasts, the fnr1 mutant shows a significant decrease in label density at the lamellae relative to the margins (Table 2). Introduction of ZmFNR1 (TROL binding) to the fnr1 background restored equal FNR density between the margins and lamellae regions. By contrast, introduction of ZmFNR2 (Tic62 binding) to the fnr1 background results in much higher label density at the stromal lamellae relative to the margins. This tendency is also seen on introduction of ZmFNR3 (weak binding), but with lower statistical significance. We interpret the dramatic change in FNR localisation on ZmFNR2 expression in the fnr1 background as being related to the restoration of native AtFNR2 recruitment into strong interactions at the thylakoid membrane in this genotype (Figure 2A).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

It has been suggested that the location of FNR at different thylakoid complexes might regulate electron transport (Breyton et al., 2006; Joliot and Johnson, 2011; Twachtmann et al., 2012), and we therefore measured whether sub-chloroplast FNR distribution had an impact on enzyme activity in NADP⁺ reduction. NADP⁺ reduction and NADPH oxidation kinetics were followed in chloroplasts isolated from the different genotypes over a short illumination period followed by a dark period (Figure 4). Although amplitudes of fluorescence are quite consistent between genotypes (Figure 4), comparisons of absolute NADPH concentrations between chloroplast preparations are problematic, as the proportion of broken chloroplasts may vary. However, these data do allow us to accurately compare the kinetics of reduction and oxidation.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

As described previously for pea chloroplasts (Schreiber and Klughammer, 2009; Latouche et al., 2000) and Arabidopsis (Hanke et al., 2008), isolated chloroplasts show distinct components of NADP⁺ reduction. In the measurements shown in Figure 4, only two components are clearly observed: a fast one of less than 1 s, and a slow one that lasts ~20 s. Further characterisation of these components is described in Appendix 1. The two observed components of NADP⁺ reduction can be fitted (Supplementary file 2c) and vary significantly in relative size between genotypes (Supplementary file 2d), depending on the abundance and location of FNR. The fnr1 mutant and the genotype expressing weakly bound maize FNR in the mutant background (fnr1-ZmFNR3) show a relatively small contribution of the slow component when compared to Wt, fnr1-ZmFNR1, and fnr1-ZmFNR3. NADPH oxidation in the dark was well fit to a single component using a Hill coefficient and no difference between genotypes was detected (Supplementary file 2e).

We then determined that these differences in NADP(H) kinetics are not due to pleiotropic effects altering the abundance of other proteins that could impact photosynthetic electron transport or NADP(H) poise (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). We found no differences in protein abundance that correlate with those in NADP(H) reduction and oxidation kinetics. Although this does not discount the possibility that variable FNR:FNR tether interactions could influence regulation of these proteins (see later discussion), it does allow us to discount pleiotropic changes in their total capacity.

It is reported that FNR interactions with Tic62 and TROL are weakened by exposure to light (Alte et al., 2010; Benz et al., 2009). This means that during the illumination period of our NADP(H) measurement, these interactions will be weakened. Because interaction with Tic62 and TROL is not detected in the fnr1 and fnr1-ZmFNR3 genotypes (Figure 2C), which also have a diminished slow phase of NADP⁺ reduction (Figure 4), we propose that the release of FNR from tightly bound tether locations could contribute to an increase in the activity of the enzyme. The kinetics in Figure 4 suggest that either (1) strongly bound FNR (prevalent after dark adaptation) has less efficient NADP⁺ reduction activity, and that dissociation of FNR from Tic62 and TROL therefore represents a mechanism for upregulation, or (2) there is a difference between the genotypes in the speed with which they upregulate downstream NADPH consumption processes.

We then assessed the impact of FNR location on photosynthetic electron transport. Because of the longstanding debate about the role of FNR in CEF (Bendall and Manasse, 1995; Bojko et al., 2003; Buchert et al., 2018; Hanke et al., 2008; Hertle et al., 2013; Hosler and Yocum, 1985; Iwai et al., 2010; Mosebach et al., 2017; Shahak et al., 1981; Ye and Wang, 1997; Zhang et al., 2001), and the suggestion that relocation of FNR might be a mechanism to switch between LEF and CEF (Breyton et al., 2006; Joliot and Johnson, 2011), we paid particular attention to CEF related parameters. It is reported that rates of CEF are highest in the first 20 s of illumination following dark adaptation (Joliot and Joliot, 2005), and this corresponds to the time scale over which the slow kinetic phase of NADP⁺ reduction kinetics develops (Figure 4). We therefore compared the electrochromic band shift (ECS), here used to quantify electron flow rates, following either 20 s or 5 min acclimation to actinic light (Figure 5A). To differentiate LEF from CEF, we applied either a pulse of actinic light illumination (stimulation of both PSI and PSII, and therefore CEF + LEF), or a pulse of far red light illumination (PSI excitation only, and therefore CEF only).

Figure 5 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

As an alternative method, we also performed the experiment following infiltration with DCMU during dark adaptation. This is a specific PSII inhibitor, which showed the same trend, but with much greater variation (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). When the data are normalised to a single turnover flash, it is possible to calculate rates of CEF/total EF (Figure 5B, see Materials and methods for a detailed explanation on the calculation procedure). As expected, for WT, there is significantly more CEF following a short (20 s) light exposure in dark adapted leaves than after light acclimation. This trend is not seen in the fnr1 mutant, suggesting it lacks the capacity to upregulate CEF in dark adapted leaves. Heterologous expression of either tether bound FNR, ZmFNR1, or ZmFNR2 rescues this capacity, but the more weakly interacting ZmFNR3 does not. All genotypes show similar CEF/total EF values after light acclimation, indicating that the impact of FNR location is related to the tether interactions that occur following dark adaptation. Western blotting confirms that there is little difference in abundance of major PET components between the genotypes (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). In several replicated experiments the only consistent differences seen are decreased PsbA in the fnr1 line and increased PC in the fnr1-ZmFNR3 line. Critically, there is no difference in abundance of PgrL1 or subunit 1 of the NDH complex, indicating that CEF components are equivalent and the variation seen in our measurements of CEF is related to FNR location rather than secondary effects.

We also compared activity of PSI (P700 oxidation) and PSII (chlorophyll fluorescence) in the same genotypes under identical conditions to the ECS experiment, in order to understand how these parameters relate to the ECS. Figure 5C shows selected parameters, measured after a 20 s high light treatment of either dark adapted or light acclimated plants. PSI activity (ФI) during high light treatment is higher after light acclimation and similar between all genotypes except for a small decrease in fnr1-ZmFNR3 in dark adapted plants. As expected under high light treatment, acceptor limitation at PSI (Y(NA)) is high, and this is ameliorated somewhat by light adaptation. Unexpectedly, after dark adaptation the fnr1 mutant, which theoretically has lower Fd oxidation capacity, shows lower acceptor limitation than the other genotypes. Correspondingly, measurements of (Y(ND)) show significantly higher limitation in donors to PSI for the fnr1 mutant than all other genotypes.

These data are consistent with the deficiency in CEF seen in dark adapted fnr1 (Figure 5A), with fewer electrons being cycled back to the donor side of PSI. The opposite trend is seen following light acclimation, with fnr1 showing higher acceptor limitation and lower donor limitation. This is consistent with decreased Fd oxidation capacity at PSI resulting in decreasing acceptor availability. The fnr1-ZmFNR3 plants, which also appear deficient in CEF (Figure 5A), do not show a corresponding donor side limitation at PSI following dark adaptation. This discrepancy could be related to the elevated levels of PC protein in the fnr1-ZmFNR3 plants (Figure 4—figure supplement 1), as PC is the electron donor to PSI. As expected, light incubation leads to much greater LEF flux, with an increase in PSII acceptor availability as seen in ФII and qL for all genotypes. Taken together, our data support a model where FNR location regulates electron transport through both LET and CET pathways.

To test this further, we repeated our IGL-TEM experiment to examine sub-chloroplast FNR localisation following light adaptation. These data are plotted in Figure 6 in a comparison with those generated in the original dark adapted experiment from Figure 3. Unlike the dark adapted leaves, where staining density is equivalent between margins and lamellae, light adaptation gives higher FNR density at the margins than in the lamella. FNR density is significantly higher in the margins of light acclimated than dark adapted plants (Table 3), a region proposed to be highly active in LEF (Anderson, 1992; Chow et al., 2005).

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files, except individual electron micrographs. Micrographs of chloroplasts that were analysed have been deposited at Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7d7wm37rs) for full transparency. These are marked, to indicate the areas of the chloroplast analysed.

1. 1. Kramer M
   2. Hanke GT

   (2020) Dryad Digital Repository

   Immunogold labelling of chloroplasts.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7d7wm37rs

1. 1. Allred DR
   2. Staehelin LA

   (1986) Spatial organization of the cytochrome b6-f complex within chloroplast thylakoid membranes

   Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 849:94–103.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(86)90100-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alte F
   2. Stengel A
   3. Benz JP
   4. Petersen E
   5. Soll J
   6. Groll M
   7. Bölter B

   (2010) Ferredoxin:nadph oxidoreductase is recruited to thylakoids by binding to a polyproline type II Helix in a pH-dependent manner

   PNAS 107:19260–19265.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009124107

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Andersen B
   2. Scheller HV
   3. Møller BL

   (1992) The PSI-E subunit of photosystem I binds ferredoxin:nadp+ oxidoreductase

   FEBS Letters 311:169–173.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(92)81391-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anderson JM

   (1992) Cytochrome b 6 f complex: dynamic molecular organization, function and acclimation

   Photosynthesis Research 34:341–357.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00029810

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anderson JM
   2. Horton P
   3. Kim EH
   4. Chow WS

   (2012) Towards elucidation of dynamic structural changes of plant thylakoid architecture

   Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367:3515–3524.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0373

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Andersson B
   2. Anderson JM

   (1980) Lateral heterogeneity in the distribution of chlorophyll-protein complexes of the thylakoid membranes of spinach chloroplasts

   Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 593:427–440.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(80)90078-X

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Asada K
   2. Heber U
   3. Schreiber U

   (1993) Electron flow to the intersystem chain stromal components cyclic electron flow in maize chloroplasts, as detected in intact leaves by monitoring redox change of P700 and chlorophyll fluorescence

   Plant and Cell Physiology 34:39–50.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a078398

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Baalmann E
   2. Backhausen JE
   3. Rak C
   4. Vetter S
   5. Scheibe R

   (1995) Reductive modification and nonreductive activation of purified spinach chloroplast NADP-dependent glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase

   Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 324:201–208.

   https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.1995.0031

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bailleul B
   2. Cardol P
   3. Breyton C
   4. Finazzi G

   (2010) Electrochromism: a useful probe to study algal photosynthesis

   Photosynthesis Research 106:179–189.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-010-9579-z

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Baldry CW
    2. Walker DA
    3. Bucke C

    (1966) Calvin-cycle intermediates in relation to induction phenomena in photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation by isolated chloroplasts

    Biochemical Journal 101:642–646.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1010642

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bates D
    2. Maechler M
    3. Bolker B
    4. Walker S

    (2015) Fitting linear Mixed-Effects models using lme4

    Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48.

    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bendall DS
    2. Manasse RS

    (1995) Cyclic photophosphorylation and electron transport

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 1229:23–38.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(94)00195-B

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Benz JP
    2. Stengel A
    3. Lintala M
    4. Lee YH
    5. Weber A
    6. Philippar K
    7. Gügel IL
    8. Kaieda S
    9. Ikegami T
    10. Mulo P
    11. Soll J
    12. Bölter B

    (2009) Arabidopsis Tic62 and ferredoxin-NADP(H) oxidoreductase form light-regulated complexes that are integrated into the chloroplast redox poise

    The Plant Cell 21:3965–3983.

    https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.109.069815

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Benz JP
    2. Lintala M
    3. Soll J
    4. Mulo P
    5. Bölter B

    (2010) A new concept for ferredoxin-NADP(H) oxidoreductase binding to plant thylakoids

    Trends in Plant Science 15:608–613.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.08.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Böhme H

    (1978) Quantitative determination of ferredoxin, ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase and plastocyanin in spinach chloroplasts

    European Journal of Biochemistry 83:137–141.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1978.tb12077.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Bojko M
    2. Kruk J
    3. Wieckowski S

    (2003) Plastoquinones are effectively reduced by ferredoxin: NADP+ oxidoreductase in the presence of sodium cholate micelles. significance for cyclic electron transport and chlororespiration

    Phytochemistry 64:1055–1060.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(03)00506-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Breyton C
    2. Nandha B
    3. Johnson GN
    4. Joliot P
    5. Finazzi G

    (2006) Redox modulation of cyclic electron flow around photosystem I in C3 plants

    Biochemistry 45:13465–13475.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi061439s

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Buchert F
    2. Hamon M
    3. Gäbelein P
    4. Scholz M
    5. Hippler M
    6. Wollman FA

    (2018) The labile interactions of cyclic electron flow effector proteins

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 293:17559–17573.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.004475

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Buchert F
    2. Mosebach L
    3. Gäbelein P
    4. Hippler M

    (2020) PGR5 is required for efficient Q cycle in the cytochrome b6f complex during cyclic electron flow

    Biochemical Journal 477:1631–1650.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20190914

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Burrows PA
    2. Sazanov LA
    3. Svab Z
    4. Maliga P
    5. Nixon PJ

    (1998) Identification of a functional respiratory complex in chloroplasts through analysis of tobacco mutants containing disrupted plastid ndh genes

    The EMBO Journal 17:868–876.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/17.4.868

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Carrillo N
    2. Vallejos RH

    (1982) Interaction of Ferredoxin-NADP oxidoreductase with the thylakoid membrane

    Plant Physiology 69:210–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.69.1.210

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Chow WS
    2. Kim EH
    3. Horton P
    4. Anderson JM

    (2005) Granal stacking of thylakoid membranes in higher plant chloroplasts: the physicochemical forces at work and the functional consequences that ensue

    Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences 4:1081–1090.

    https://doi.org/10.1039/b507310n

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Clark R
    2. Hawkesford M
    3. Coughlan S
    4. Bennett J
    5. Hind G

    (1984) Association of ferredoxin-NADP+ oxidoreductase with the chloroplast cytochrome bf complex

    FEBS Letters 174:137–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(84)81092-3

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Cleland RE
    2. Bendall DS

    (1992) Photosystem I cyclic electron transport: measurement of ferredoxin-plastoquinone reductase activity

    Photosynthesis Research 34:409–418.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00029815

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. DalCorso G
    2. Pesaresi P
    3. Masiero S
    4. Aseeva E
    5. Schünemann D
    6. Finazzi G
    7. Joliot P
    8. Barbato R
    9. Leister D

    (2008) A complex containing PGRL1 and PGR5 is involved in the switch between linear and cyclic electron flow in Arabidopsis

    Cell 132:273–285.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.12.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Daum B
    2. Nicastro D
    3. Austin J
    4. McIntosh JR
    5. Kühlbrandt W

    (2010) Arrangement of photosystem II and ATP synthase in chloroplast membranes of spinach and pea

    The Plant Cell 22:1299–1312.

    https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.109.071431

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Fisher N
    2. Bricker TM
    3. Kramer DM

    (2019) Regulation of photosynthetic cyclic electron flow pathways by adenylate status in higher plant chloroplasts

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 1860:148081.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2019.148081

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Forti G
    2. Bracale M

    (1984) Ferredoxin-ferredoxin NADP reductase interaction, catalytic differences between the soluble and thylakoid bound complex

    FEBS Letters 166:81–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(84)80049-6

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Foyer CH
    2. Halliwell B

    (1976) The presence of glutathione and glutathione reductase in chloroplasts: a proposed role in ascorbic acid metabolism

    Planta 133:21–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Grzyb J
    2. Gagoś M
    3. Gruszecki WI
    4. Bojko M
    5. Strzałka K

    (2008) Interaction of ferredoxin:nadp+ oxidoreductase with model membranes

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes 1778:133–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2007.09.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Grzyb J
    2. Gieczewska K
    3. Łabuz J
    4. Sztatelman O

    (2018) Detailed characterization of Synechocystis PCC 6803 ferredoxin:nadp⁺ oxidoreductase interaction with model membranes

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes 1860:281–291.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2017.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Gummadova JO
    2. Fletcher GJ
    3. Moolna A
    4. Hanke GT
    5. Hase T
    6. Bowsher CG

    (2007) Expression of multiple forms of ferredoxin NADP+ oxidoreductase in wheat leaves

    Journal of Experimental Botany 58:3971–3985.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm252

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hajirezaei MR
    2. Peisker M
    3. Tschiersch H
    4. Palatnik JF
    5. Valle EM
    6. Carrillo N
    7. Sonnewald U

    (2002) Small changes in the activity of chloroplastic NADP(+)-dependent ferredoxin oxidoreductase lead to impaired plant growth and restrict photosynthetic activity of transgenic tobacco plants

    The Plant Journal 29:281–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7412.2001.01209.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hanke GT
    2. Okutani S
    3. Satomi Y
    4. Takao T
    5. Suzuki A
    6. Hase T

    (2005) Multiple iso-proteins of FNR in Arabidopsis: evidence for different contributions to chloroplast function and nitrogen assimilation

    Plant, Cell and Environment 28:1146–1157.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01352.x

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hanke GT
    2. Endo T
    3. Satoh F
    4. Hase T

    (2008) Altered photosynthetic electron channelling into cyclic electron flow and nitrite assimilation in a mutant of ferredoxin:nadp(H) reductase

    Plant, Cell & Environment 31:1017–1028.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01814.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hashida SN
    2. Miyagi A
    3. Nishiyama M
    4. Yoshida K
    5. Hisabori T
    6. Kawai-Yamada M

    (2018) Ferredoxin/thioredoxin system plays an important role in the chloroplastic NADP status of Arabidopsis

    The Plant Journal 95:947–960.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Heineke D
    2. Riens B
    3. Grosse H
    4. Hoferichter P
    5. Peter U
    6. Flügge UI
    7. Heldt HW

    (1991) Redox transfer across the inner chloroplast envelope membrane

    Plant Physiology 95:1131–1137.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.95.4.1131

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hermann R
    2. Walther P
    3. Müller M

    (1996) Immunogold labeling in scanning electron microscopy

    Histochemistry and Cell Biology 106:31–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hertle AP
    2. Blunder T
    3. Wunder T
    4. Pesaresi P
    5. Pribil M
    6. Armbruster U
    7. Leister D

    (2013) PGRL1 is the elusive ferredoxin-plastoquinone reductase in photosynthetic cyclic electron flow

    Molecular Cell 49:511–523.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hill R
    2. Bendall FAY

    (1960) Function of the two cytochrome components in chloroplasts: a working hypothesis

    Nature 186:136–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/186136a0

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hosler JP
    2. Yocum CF

    (1985) Evidence for two cyclic photophosphorylation reactions concurrent with ferredoxin-catalyzed non-cyclic electron transport

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 808:21–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(85)90023-4

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Huang W
    2. Yang YJ
    3. Zhang SB
    4. Liu T

    (2018) Cyclic electron flow around photosystem I promotes ATP synthesis possibly helping the rapid repair of photodamaged photosystem II at low light

    Frontiers in Plant Science 9:239.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Huebinger J
    2. Spindler J
    3. Holl KJ
    4. Koos B

    (2018) Quantification of protein mobility and associated reshuffling of cytoplasm during chemical fixation

    Scientific Reports 8:17756.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36112-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Iwai M
    2. Takizawa K
    3. Tokutsu R
    4. Okamuro A
    5. Takahashi Y
    6. Minagawa J

    (2010) Isolation of the elusive supercomplex that drives cyclic electron flow in photosynthesis

    Nature 464:1210–1213.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08885

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Joliot P
    2. Johnson GN

    (2011) Regulation of cyclic and linear electron flow in higher plants

    PNAS 108:13317–13322.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110189108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Joliot P
    2. Joliot A

    (2005) Quantification of cyclic and linear flows in plants

    PNAS 102:4913–4918.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0501268102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Jurić S
    2. Hazler-Pilepić K
    3. Tomasić A
    4. Lepedus H
    5. Jelicić B
    6. Puthiyaveetil S
    7. Bionda T
    8. Vojta L
    9. Allen JF
    10. Schleiff E
    11. Fulgosi H

    (2009) Tethering of ferredoxin:nadp+ oxidoreductase to thylakoid membranes is mediated by novel chloroplast protein TROL

    The Plant Journal : For Cell and Molecular Biology 60:783–794.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03999.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Kauny J
    2. Sétif P

    (2014) NADPH fluorescence in the Cyanobacterium synechocystis sp. PCC 6803: a versatile probe for in vivo measurements of rates, yields and pools

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 1837:792–801.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2014.01.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Kimata Y
    2. Hase T

    (1989) Localization of ferredoxin isoproteins in mesophyll and bundle sheath cells in maize leaf

    Plant Physiology 89:1193–1197.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.89.4.1193

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Klughammer C
    2. Schreiber U

    (2008)

    Saturation pulse method for assessment of energy conversion in PS I

    PAM Application Notes 1:11–14.

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Kofer W
    2. Koop HU
    3. Wanner G
    4. Steinmüller K

    (1998) Mutagenesis of the genes encoding subunits A, C, H, I, J and K of the plastid NAD(P)H-plastoquinone-oxidoreductase in tobacco by polyethylene glycol-mediated plastome transformation

    Molecular and General Genetics MGG 258:166–173.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s004380050719

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Kozuleva M
    2. Goss T
    3. Twachtmann M
    4. Rudi K
    5. Trapka J
    6. Selinski J
    7. Ivanov B
    8. Garapati P
    9. Steinhoff HJ
    10. Hase T
    11. Scheibe R
    12. Klare JP
    13. Hanke GT

    (2016) Ferredoxin:nadp(H) Oxidoreductase abundance and location influences redox poise and stress tolerance

    Plant Physiology 172:1480–1493.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.01084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Kramer DM
    2. Evans JR

    (2011) The importance of energy balance in improving photosynthetic productivity

    Plant Physiology 155:70–78.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.166652

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Kuznetsova A
    2. Brockhoff PB
    3. Christensen RHB

    (2017) lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models

    Journal of Statistical Software 82:1–26.

    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Laemmli UK

    (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4

    Nature 227:680–685.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Latouche G
    2. Cerovic ZG
    3. Montagnini F
    4. Moya I

    (2000) Light-induced changes of NADPH fluorescence in isolated chloroplasts: a spectral and fluorescence lifetime study

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta 1460:311–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-2728(00)00198-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Lennon AM
    2. Prommeenate P
    3. Nixon PJ

    (2003) Location, expression and orientation of the putative chlororespiratory enzymes, Ndh and IMMUTANS, in higher-plant plastids

    Planta 218:254–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-003-1111-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Lim SL
    2. Voon CP
    3. Guan X
    4. Yang Y
    5. Gardeström P
    6. Lim BL

    (2020) In planta study of photosynthesis and photorespiration using NADPH and NADH/NAD⁺ fluorescent protein sensors

    Nature Communications 11:3238.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17056-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Lintala M
    2. Allahverdiyeva Y
    3. Kidron H
    4. Piippo M
    5. Battchikova N
    6. Suorsa M
    7. Rintamäki E
    8. Salminen TA
    9. Aro EM
    10. Mulo P

    (2007) Structural and functional characterization of ferredoxin-NADP+-oxidoreductase using knock-out mutants of Arabidopsis

    The Plant Journal 49:1041–1052.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.03014.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Lintala M
    2. Allahverdiyeva Y
    3. Kangasjärvi S
    4. Lehtimäki N
    5. Keränen M
    6. Rintamäki E
    7. Aro EM
    8. Mulo P

    (2009) Comparative analysis of leaf-type ferredoxin-NADP oxidoreductase isoforms in Arabidopsis thaliana

    The Plant Journal : For Cell and Molecular Biology 57:1103–1115.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03753.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Lintala M
    2. Lehtimäki N
    3. Benz JP
    4. Jungfer A
    5. Soll J
    6. Aro EM
    7. Bölter B
    8. Mulo P

    (2012) Depletion of leaf-type ferredoxin-NADP(+) oxidoreductase results in the permanent induction of photoprotective mechanisms in Arabidopsis chloroplasts

    The Plant Journal 70:809–817.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.04930.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Lintala M
    2. Schuck N
    3. Thormählen I
    4. Jungfer A
    5. Weber KL
    6. Weber AP
    7. Geigenberger P
    8. Soll J
    9. Bölter B
    10. Mulo P

    (2014) Arabidopsis tic62 trol mutant lacking thylakoid-bound ferredoxin-NADP+ oxidoreductase shows distinct metabolic phenotype

    Molecular Plant 7:45–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst129

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Marco P
    2. Elman T
    3. Yacoby I

    (2019) Binding of ferredoxin NADP⁺ oxidoreductase (FNR) to plant photosystem I

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 1860:689–698.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2019.07.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Matthijs HC
    2. Coughlan SJ
    3. Hind G

    (1986) Removal of ferredoxin: NADP+ oxidoreductase from thylakoid membranes, rebinding to depleted membranes, and identification of the binding site

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 261:12154–12158.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)67216-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Mills JD
    2. Crowther D
    3. Slovacek RE
    4. Hind G
    5. McCarty RE

    (1979) Electron transport pathways in spinach chloroplasts. reduction of the primary acceptor of photosystem II by reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate in the dark

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 547:127–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(79)90101-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Mitchell P

    (1975) The protonmotive Q cycle: a general formulation

    FEBS Letters 59:137–139.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(75)80359-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Mosebach L
    2. Heilmann C
    3. Mutoh R
    4. Gäbelein P
    5. Steinbeck J
    6. Happe T
    7. Ikegami T
    8. Hanke G
    9. Kurisu G
    10. Hippler M

    (2017) Association of ferredoxin:nadp⁺ oxidoreductase with the photosynthetic apparatus modulates electron transfer in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

    Photosynthesis Research 134:291–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-017-0408-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Munekage Y
    2. Hojo M
    3. Meurer J
    4. Endo T
    5. Tasaka M
    6. Shikanai T

    (2002) PGR5 is involved in cyclic electron flow around photosystem I and is essential for photoprotection in Arabidopsis

    Cell 110:361–371.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00867-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Munekage YN
    2. Eymery F
    3. Rumeau D
    4. Cuiné S
    5. Oguri M
    6. Nakamura N
    7. Yokota A
    8. Genty B
    9. Peltier G

    (2010) Elevated expression of PGR5 and NDH-H in bundle sheath chloroplasts in C4 Flaveria species

    Plant and Cell Physiology 51:664–668.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcq030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Mustárdy L
    2. Buttle K
    3. Steinbach G
    4. Garab G

    (2008) The three-dimensional network of the thylakoid membranes in plants: quasihelical model of the granum-stroma assembly

    The Plant Cell 20:2552–2557.

    https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.059147

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Naranjo B
    2. Mignée C
    3. Krieger-Liszkay A
    4. Hornero-Méndez D
    5. Gallardo-Guerrero L
    6. Cejudo FJ
    7. Lindahl M

    (2016) The chloroplast NADPH thioredoxin reductase C, NTRC, controls non-photochemical quenching of light energy and photosynthetic electron transport in Arabidopsis

    Plant, Cell & Environment 39:804–822.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12652

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Negi SS
    2. Carol AA
    3. Pandya S
    4. Braun W
    5. Anderson LE

    (2008) Co-localization of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase with ferredoxin-NADP reductase in pea leaf chloroplasts

    Journal of Structural Biology 161:18–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2007.08.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Nikkanen L
    2. Toivola J
    3. Rintamäki E

    (2016) Crosstalk between chloroplast thioredoxin systems in regulation of photosynthesis

    Plant, Cell & Environment 39:1691–1705.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12718

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Nikkanen L
    2. Toivola J
    3. Trotta A
    4. Diaz MG
    5. Tikkanen M
    6. Aro EM
    7. Rintamäki E

    (2018) Regulation of cyclic electron flow by chloroplast NADPH-dependent thioredoxin system

    Plant Direct 2:e00093.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.93

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Okutani S
    2. Hanke GT
    3. Satomi Y
    4. Takao T
    5. Kurisu G
    6. Suzuki A
    7. Hase T

    (2005) Three maize leaf ferredoxin:nadph oxidoreductases vary in subchloroplast location, expression, and interaction with ferredoxin

    Plant Physiology 139:1451–1459.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.070813

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Paolillo DJ

    (1970)

    The three-dimensional arrangement of intergranal lamellae in chloroplasts

    Journal of Cell Science 6:243–255.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Peltier G
    2. Aro EM
    3. Shikanai T

    (2016) NDH-1 and NDH-2 plastoquinone reductases in oxygenic photosynthesis

    Annual Review of Plant Biology 67:55–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114752

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Piubelli L
    2. Aliverti A
    3. Arakaki AK
    4. Carrillo N
    5. Ceccarelli EA
    6. Karplus PA
    7. Zanetti G

    (2000) Competition between C-terminal tyrosine and nicotinamide modulates pyridine nucleotide affinity and specificity in plant ferredoxin-NADP(+) reductase

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:10472–10476.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.275.14.10472

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
80. 1. Ravenel J
    2. Peltier G
    3. Havaux M

    (1994) The cyclic electron pathways around photosystem I in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as determined in vivo by photoacoustic measurements of energy storage

    Planta 193:251–259.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192538

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Reisinger V
    2. Eichacker LA

    (2007) How to analyze protein complexes by 2D blue native SDS-PAGE

    Proteomics 7 Suppl 1:6–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700205

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Scheibe R

    (2004) Malate valves to balance cellular energy supply

    Physiologia Plantarum 120:21–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-9317.2004.0222.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Schnell U
    2. Dijk F
    3. Sjollema KA
    4. Giepmans BN

    (2012) Immunolabeling artifacts and the need for live-cell imaging

    Nature Methods 9:152–158.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1855

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Schreiber U
    2. Klughammer C

    (2009)

    New NADPH/9-AA module for the DUAL-PAM-100: description, operation and examples of application

    PAM Application Notes 2:1–13.

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Schuller JM
    2. Birrell JA
    3. Tanaka H
    4. Konuma T
    5. Wulfhorst H
    6. Cox N
    7. Schuller SK
    8. Thiemann J
    9. Lubitz W
    10. Sétif P
    11. Ikegami T
    12. Engel BD
    13. Kurisu G
    14. Nowaczyk MM

    (2019) Structural adaptations of photosynthetic complex I enable ferredoxin-dependent electron transfer

    Science 363:257–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3613

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Selinski J
    2. Scheibe R

    (2019) Malate valves: old shuttles with new perspectives

    Plant Biology 21 Suppl 1:21–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12869

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Shahak Y
    2. Crowther D
    3. Hind G

    (1981) The involvement of ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase in cyclic electron transport in chloroplasts

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 636:234–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2728(81)90097-9

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Shikanai T
    2. Endo T
    3. Hashimoto T
    4. Yamada Y
    5. Asada K
    6. Yokota A

    (1998) Directed disruption of the tobacco ndhB gene impairs cyclic electron flow around photosystem I

    PNAS 95:9705–9709.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.16.9705

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Shin M
    2. Tagawa K
    3. Arnon D

    (1963)

    Crystallization of Ferredoxin-Tpn reductase and its role in the photosynthetic apparatus of chloroplasts

    Biochemische Zeitschrift 338:84–96.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Stengel A
    2. Benz P
    3. Balsera M
    4. Soll J
    5. Bölter B

    (2008) TIC62 redox-regulated translocon composition and dynamics

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:6656–6667.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M706719200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Strand DD
    2. Livingston AK
    3. Satoh-Cruz M
    4. Froehlich JE
    5. Maurino VG
    6. Kramer DM

    (2015) Activation of cyclic electron flow by hydrogen peroxide in vivo

    PNAS 112:5539–5544.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418223112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Strand DD
    2. Fisher N
    3. Davis GA
    4. Kramer DM

    (2016) Redox regulation of the antimycin A sensitive pathway of cyclic electron flow around photosystem I in higher plant thylakoids

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics 1857:1–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2015.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Suorsa M
    2. Järvi S
    3. Grieco M
    4. Nurmi M
    5. Pietrzykowska M
    6. Rantala M
    7. Kangasjärvi S
    8. Paakkarinen V
    9. Tikkanen M
    10. Jansson S
    11. Aro EM

    (2012) PROTON GRADIENT REGULATION5 is essential for proper acclimation of Arabidopsis photosystem I to naturally and artificially fluctuating light conditions

    The Plant Cell 24:2934–2948.

    https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.112.097162

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Suss KH
    2. Prokhorenko I
    3. Adler K

    (1995) In situ association of calvin cycle enzymes, Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate carboxylase/Oxygenase activase, Ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase, and nitrite reductase with thylakoid and pyrenoid membranes of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chloroplasts as revealed by immunoelectron microscopy

    Plant Physiology 107:1387–1397.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.4.1387

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Takahashi H
    2. Clowez S
    3. Wollman FA
    4. Vallon O
    5. Rappaport F

    (2013) Cyclic electron flow is redox-controlled but independent of state transition

    Nature Communications 4:1954.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2954

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Tejero J
    2. Pérez-Dorado I
    3. Maya C
    4. Martínez-Júlvez M
    5. Sanz-Aparicio J
    6. Gómez-Moreno C
    7. Hermoso JA
    8. Medina M

    (2005) C-terminal tyrosine of ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase in hydride transfer processes with NAD(P)+/H

    Biochemistry 44:13477–13490.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi051278c

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Towbin H
    2. Staehelin T
    3. Gordon J

    (1979) Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications

    PNAS 76:4350–4354.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.76.9.4350

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Twachtmann M
    2. Altmann B
    3. Muraki N
    4. Voss I
    5. Okutani S
    6. Kurisu G
    7. Hase T
    8. Hanke GT

    (2012) N-terminal structure of maize ferredoxin:NADP⁺ reductase determines recruitment into different thylakoid membrane complexes

    The Plant Cell 24:2979–2991.

    https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.111.094532

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Walker BJ
    2. Strand DD
    3. Kramer DM
    4. Cousins AB

    (2014) The response of cyclic electron flow around photosystem I to changes in Photorespiration and nitrate assimilation

    Plant Physiology 165:453–462.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.238238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Wolosiuk RA
     2. Buchanan BB

     (1978) Activation of chloroplast NADP-linked Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate dehydrogenase by the ferredoxin/Thioredoxin system

     Plant Physiology 61:669–671.

     https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.61.4.669

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Yamamoto H
     2. Shikanai T

     (2013) In planta mutagenesis of src homology 3 domain-like fold of NdhS, a ferredoxin-binding subunit of the chloroplast NADH dehydrogenase-like complex in Arabidopsis: a conserved Arg-193 plays a critical role in ferredoxin binding

     The Journal of Biological Chemistry 288:36328–36337.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.511584

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Yamori W
     2. Makino A
     3. Shikanai T

     (2016) A physiological role of cyclic electron transport around photosystem I in sustaining photosynthesis under fluctuating light in rice

     Scientific Reports 6:20147.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20147

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Ye JY
     2. Wang YJ

     (1997)

     The involvement of Ferredoxin-NADP reductase in the photosynthetic cyclic electron transport

     Sheng Wu Hua Xue Yu Sheng Wu Wu Li Xue Bao Acta Biochimica Et Biophysica Sinica 29:40–45.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Yoshida K
     2. Hisabori T

     (2016) Two distinct redox cascades cooperatively regulate chloroplast functions and sustain plant viability

     PNAS 113:E3967–E3976.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604101113

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Zhang H
     2. Whitelegge JP
     3. Cramer WA

     (2001) Ferredoxin:nadp+ oxidoreductase is a subunit of the chloroplast cytochrome b6f complex

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 276:38159–38165.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M105454200

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

The work makes significant contribution to our understanding of photosynthesis, specifically in the reactions following transfer of electrons from photosystem I, and on how they are partitioned among downstream sinks (metabolic processes) and cyclic electron flow, an important process that has received relatively little experimental attention. The reviewers thought that the revised version has been substantially improved by more robust analyses and consideration of alternative interpretations of the results, setting up the field to directly test and validate the mechanisms.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Electron flow during photosynthesis is regulated by location of Ferredoxin:NADP(H) Oxidoreductase" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by Christian Hardtke as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Robert Burnap (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

As the editors have judged that your manuscript is of interest, but as described below that additional experiments are required before it is published, we would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). First, because many researchers have temporarily lost access to the labs, we will give authors as much time as they need to submit revised manuscripts. We are also offering, if you choose, to post the manuscript to bioRxiv (if it is not already there) along with this decision letter and a formal designation that the manuscript is 'in revision at eLife'. Please let us know if you would like to pursue this option. (If your work is more suitable for medRxiv, you will need to post the preprint yourself, as the mechanisms for us to do so are still in development.)

Summary:

This work describes significant, new results that help answer long-standing question about the roles of FNR in regulating the partitioning of electrons from photosystem I (PSI) into linear electron flow (LEF) and cyclic electron flow (CEF). Both reviewers felt that the work makes a strong contribution to a long-standing and perplexing area of photosynthesis research. One strength of the work is that it critically tests some of the past assumptions about how, or even if, this re-localization occurs, and comes to the provocative conclusion that much of the previous work needs to be re-evaluated, with important consequences for a number of models proposed in the literature. Specifically, the previously proposed soluble forms of FNR are shown to remain membrane-associated, but that the localization within different thylakoid domains is variable. They then perform a number of genetics and spectroscopic measurements that are interpreted to support a role for the changes in localization of FNR to regulating electron flow. However, both reviewers also concluded that there were substantial issues, in experimental interpretation and statistical analysis.

Essential revisions:

Both reviewers also concluded that there were substantial issues that must be addressed. Some of these issues may require some additional experimental work, but it is also possible that they can be dealt with by more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the results the group already has on hand. For example, it may be possible to deal with the reviewer #1's criticism of the interpretation of photosystem I absorbance signals, by reanalyzing the raw data.

However, other issues, e.g. the statistical analysis in Figure 4 brought up by both reviewers, appear to require additional experimental results, and this may delay resubmission.

Both reviewers recommended specific approached to most easily address these issues.

The discussion should be modified along the lines of the reviewers' comments to better reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the data sets and the current state of the field.

While it is understandable that one would as high impact a title as possible, it should not make declarations that are not supported by the paper itself.

Reviewer #1:

This manuscript revisits a long-standing, and quite mysterious, set of observations in which FNR1 and FNR2 appear can be differentially localized near the thylakoid membrane or in the stroma, possibly regulating the partitioning of electrons from photosystem I (PSI) into linear electron flow (LEF) and cyclic electron flow (CEF). What I like about the work is that it critically reviews some of the past assumptions about how, or even if, this re-localization occurs, and comes to the provocative conclusion that much of the previous work needs to be re-evaluated, with important consequences for a number of models proposed in the literature. Specifically, the previously proposed soluble forms of FNR are shown to remain membrane-associated, but that the localization within different thylakoid domains is variable. They then perform a number of genetics and spectroscopic measurements that are interpreted to support a role for the changes in localization of FNR to regulating electron flow.

While some of the work seems to be solid, there are serious experimental issues with three areas of photosynthetic measurements and their interpretation.

Critical science issues:

The interpretation of the data in Figure 4 is likely to be over simplistic, or at the very least, there are multiple interpretations that lead to different conclusions.

The test interprets the fast and slow rise phases as reflecting more rapidly or more slowly interacting FNR/NADPH pools, as in the following: "We therefore propose that the slow component reflects relocation of FNR from tightly bound tether locations to weak associations elsewhere on the thylakoid."

However, this seems unlikely considering the slow time scale of the slow phases. More likely explanations include the following:

1) It is also possible that the system is heterogeneous, so that different subpopulations of chloroplasts or pools within chloroplasts behave differently. For instance, the presence of a fraction of broken or damaged chloroplasts could give rise to a slow NADP+ reduction phase;

2) Reduction of other electron carriers, including NADH which would also contribute to blue fluorescence, or bound NAD(P)H which has been reported to have a higher fluorescence yield than their free forms;

3) The slow rise represents is controlled by downstream re-oxidation of previously reduced NADPH. The immediate rise in fluorescence is, indeed, consistent with a model in which a local pool of NADPH goes rapidly reduced when the light is switched on. In this case, The slow rise may reflect NADPH further net reduction of NADPH, but not because of low accessibility of FNR/NADP+ but rather changes in the reoxidation of reduced NADPH. In this case, in initial extent of NADPH reduction is set by competition between reduction and re-oxidation, and the slow rise is caused by either increased in reduction or decreases in re-oxidation. For example, there may be a pool of oxidant for NADPH that is slowly reduced during the slow phase. Or, a local pool of O2 could be depleted during the slow rise time.

The complex, multiphasic decay kinetics in the dark seem to be consistent with this type of model. For example, there are clearly fast phases of decay in fnr1 and fnr1 ZmFNR2 that are not fit to the "simple second order kinetics" model used in the manuscript. (Indeed, there is no strong rationale for using simple second-order kinetics, which assumes that the system is homogeneous but with limiting concentrations of two substrates.) This simple second order model cannot account for the rapid decay phases (see above). For instance, it is possible that a very rapid re-oxidation process would introduce a quite rapid decay phase that, even if small in amplitude, would constitute a large fraction of the flux. Indeed, the kinetics are quite complex and thus simple second order behavior is likely to be an oversimplification. This may also explain the improved fits when modulating the ad hoc Hill cooperativity term.

“We then determined that these differences in NADP(H) kinetics are not due to secondary impact on other PET chain components, by examining abundance of proteins that could impact photosynthetic electron transport or NADP(H) poise (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). We found no differences that correlate to those in NADP(H) reduction and oxidation kinetics.”

This is not a very strong argument. Even with equal content there could be different activities or locations of other enzymes, as is inferred from the other arguments in the manuscript.

"In both cases this yields a linear relationship. It is reported that FNR interactions with Tic62 and TROL are weakened by exposure to light (Alte et al., 2010, Benz et al., 2009)."

The lack of statistical treatment in this data set is troubling. In Figure 4, the error bars shown in bar graphs are apparently not related to biological or even technical replicates, but to "fitting errors", presumably from a single trace. This issue extends into Figure 5, so it is not possible to conclude that there is a linear relationship or not. The apparent linearity is mostly due to a single point, fnr1, and removing this point would suggest that the relationship is quite different, perhaps an exponential rise or no statistically significant relationship at all.

As described previously for pea 235 chloroplasts (Schreiber and Klughammer, 2009) and Arabidopsis (Hanke et al., 2008), 9 isolated chloroplasts show distinct components of NADP+ 236 reduction.

"We then assessed the impact of FNR location on photosynthetic electron transport…"

This part of the text makes a rather big leap in inferences from a hypothetical interpretation of blue fluorescence kinetics to the location of the FNR…

“In order to differentiate LEF from CEF, we compared white light illumination (stimulation of both PSI and PSII, and therefore CEF + LEF), with far red light illumination (PSI excitation only, and therefore CEF only).”

This is clearly incorrect. While far red light preferentially excites PSI, it does not exclusively do so, and thus it is not possible to attribute all electron transport or associated signals to CEF under far red light. Also, the previous observation of high CEF during the first 20 s of illumination with light hitting both PSI and PSII were attributed to metabolic or physiological effects of the induction of downstream metabolic processes. It is not at all clear if the same would be true with far red light, nor that it would be comparable in the mutant lines.

"Unexpectedly, after dark adaptation the fnr1 mutant, which theoretically has lower Fd oxidation capacity, shows lower acceptor limitation than the other genotypes."

There are several potential issues with these results.

No references are given to the methods.

The predominant method for making these types of measurements will likely not work in these types of mutants and conditions. Neither the text nor the Materials and methods supply sufficient information to determine important aspects of the experiment, nor are representative traces given, so it is not possible to determine if this is the case.

It is important to show the kinetics of the P700 signals because with strong PSI acceptor limitations a strong pulse of actinic light can result in rapid accumulation of electrons on PSI acceptors, preventing one from determining the real amplitude of Pm or Pm'. In many cases, application of far red light minimized this issue, but in the case of fnr1, in which the capacity for oxidation of Fd is constitutively low, it is quite likely that this will not help. Underestimating Pm should artifactually decrease Y(NA).

The best way to determine if these issues impact the results is to show the raw traces and look for the transient behavior of the P700+ signal.

"The non-photochemical quenching parameters for PSI were calculated with Y(ND) = 1-P700 red. and Y(NA) = (Pm-Pm') / Pm. The effective PSI quantum yield was calculated with Y(I) = 1-Y(ND)-Y(NA). NPQ was calculated by the DUAL-PAM-100 software."

These are not "non-photochemical quenching" parameters, but relative changes in redox states.

"Chloroplasts switch rapidly between LEF and CEF..". One of the best demonstration of the rapid rates of switching between LEF and CEF is Luker et al., who showed it was rapid indeed, on the order of tens of seconds. How can changing the localization of FNR and its interactions with the thylakoid membrane respond this quickly?

Reviewer #2:

This is a strong contribution that analyzes the correlation between the distribution of FNR alone sections of the chloroplast and the characteristics of cyclic electron flow. The topic addresses important controversial question about how cyclic electron transport is transiently upregulated and them down regulated during the dark light transition ---- a brief period when excess light energy cannot yet be adequately utilized because the time it takes to activate the carbon fixation reactions of the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. Significance also relates to The fact that similar regulatory features are probably necessary for the protection stabilization of the photosynthetic mechanism in fluctuating environmental conditions. Therefore, I rate the overall significance this manuscript as high.

Technically, this appears to be a well-executed set of wisely chosen experiments. There are some grammatical issues, but overall the manuscript is clearly written with interesting discussions. Apart from some clarifications on the interpretation of the kinetics, I find no serious glitches in this article and offer only a few minor additional suggestions:

It would be a good idea to briefly define what control coefficient means since this aspect of metabolic theory is not so widely studied, despite its importance.

Results paragraph seven (this paragraph and next):

This discussion would benefit from some re-working to clarify. After finishing the Discussion I can see what they were after, but the initial description of the kinetic features needs clarification. Later on a graphical model would also help.

Figure 4 is fit with two components, yet the discussion would seem to imply a third sequential component that needs to be accounted for in the fit. If the strongly bound form is not simply "less efficient", but essentially inactive, then slow component refers to the time of diffusion and (or release assuming very fast diffusion). In that case, the third component could be essentially invisible, if the proposed diffusional excursion ends with much faster process. Intermediate situations would be a more complex situation and I think it would probably appear as a more sigmoidal characteristic of the slow phase as those mobilized convert to faster activity. Don't know if this makes sense, but definitely the authors need to better express their ideas in the context of a model.

I think this is not a change in efficiency but the existence of two parallel reactions with different efficiencies (see above).

The authors should consider the recent finding that the NADH-1 complex appears not to use NADPH, but Fd which would be in line with their interpretation.

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Regulation of photosynthetic electron flow on dark to light transition by Ferredoxin:NADP(H) Oxidoreductase interactions" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Christian Hardtke (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed before acceptance, as outlined below:

Essential revisions:

The reviewers judged that the current revisions corrected most of the issues, mainly by eliminating some areas of over-interpretation and narrowing the focus of the discuss. However, some important problems remain, especially regarding the interpretation of the NADPH florescence kinetics. As brought up by reviewer #1 in the first review, and further expanded on be reviewer #2 in the second review, the biphasic characteristics of the fluorescence rise can have multiple interpretations, and this issue has not been addressed in the revised text, which still sticks to an over-simplistic interpretation and the text needs to introduce other possible interpretations especially because the data presented thus far cannot exclude them. The reviewer and editor feel that an acknowledgement and full discussion of these possibilities is not only essential for the science, it will strengthen the paper substantially.

The paper may be acceptable for publication if this, and the smaller issues brought up by Reviewer #2, can be addressed. In particular, the revision must address the inaccurate interpretation of the Kauny/Setif reference and discuss possible alternative interpretations of the fast and slow phases of the NADPH kinetics.

Reviewer #2

Although the regulation of cyclic electron flow (CEF) in plant chloroplasts has been clearly demonstrated, its mechanism has yet to be established. The present work investigates the hypothesis that regulation of CEF is exerted via the re-positioning of ferredoxin-NADP reductase (FNR) to different places on the thlyakoid. The work begins with an immunogold electron microscopic analysis of the distribution of FNR in chloroplast of several Arabidopsis mutants that have previously shown to have different associations with the thylakoids, though interestingly, all forms appear to be associated with the thylakoid and none free in the stroma. Correlations between the distribution of FNR and the characteristics of CEF was then anlayzed using multiple approaches, and although some assays were not necessarily unambiguous, overall the data presents a reasonably compelling argument that FNR re-positioning underlies the observed switching in the intensity of CEF, at least during the dark-light transition.

By and large the questions have been mostly addressed, however some problems remain regarding the NADPH florescence kinetics, specifically their biphasic characteristics of their rise. The authors still have not excluded other downstream processes as being responsible for the slow phase. These can be slowly changing fast rates of redox sinks. In other words, these can be relatively fast NADPH consumption process (very fast relative to the times scales of the experiment), but their rates can be slowly changing. The argument post about the lack of biphasicity cyanobacteria (Kauny/Setif reference) is not accurate: although clearly different kinetics, with different shapes are involved in cyanobacteria, the slower phases are clearly visible and actually correlate to things like state transitions and the activation of the Calvin cycle. Accordingly, processes downstream of PSET (but interacting due to back-propagation effects) seem to be responsible for these multi second kinetic features. Since thee are intact chloroplasts, it is clearly possible such effects are present in the current experiments. Thus the argument based on measuring the abundance of electron transport chain components is not sufficient to strongly argue against the dominance of downstream processes in governing the slower phase. This needs to be clearly articulated in the main results text as well as in discussion. That said, the hypothesis that relocation accounts for these phases is not excluded either and altogether the interpretations seem to hold together. Nevertheless, the cited weakness needs to temper the strength of the arguments.

Essential revisions:

Both reviewers also concluded that there were substantial issues that must be addressed. Some of these issues may require some additional experimental work, but it is also possible that they can be dealt with by more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the results the group already has on hand. For example, it may be possible to deal with the reviewer #1's criticism of the interpretation of photosystem I absorbance signals, by reanalyzing the raw data.

However, other issues, e.g. the statistical analysis in Figure 4 brought up by both reviewers, appear to require additional experimental results, and this may delay resubmission.

We have now completed this experimental work, which is presented in a new Figure 4 and Appendix 1—figure 1.

Both reviewers recommended specific approached to most easily address these issues.

The discussion should be modified along the lines of the reviewers' comments to better reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the data sets and the current state of the field.

The discussion has been modified according to the reviewers recommendations.

While it is understandable that one would as high impact a title as possible, it should not make declarations that are not supported by the paper itself.

The title has been modified to more specifically reflect the findings in the paper.

Reviewer #1:

This manuscript revisits a long-standing, and quite mysterious, set of observations in which FNR1 and FNR2 appear can be differentially localized near the thylakoid membrane or in the stroma, possibly regulating the partitioning of electrons from photosystem I (PSI) into linear electron flow (LEF) and cyclic electron flow (CEF). What I like about the work is that it critically reviews some of the past assumptions about how, or even if, this re-localization occurs, and comes to the provocative conclusion that much of the previous work needs to be re-evaluated, with important consequences for a number of models proposed in the literature. Specifically, the previously proposed soluble forms of FNR are shown to remain membrane-associated, but that the localization within different thylakoid domains is variable. They then perform a number of genetics and spectroscopic measurements that are interpreted to support a role for the changes in localization of FNR to regulating electron flow.

While some of the work seems to be solid, there are serious experimental issues with three areas of photosynthetic measurements and their interpretation.

Critical science issues:

The interpretation of the data in Figure 4 is likely to be over simplistic, or at the very least, there are multiple interpretations that lead to different conclusions.

We thank the reviewer for pushing us toward a more rigorous analysis. Chloroplast preparations can be highly variable depending on growth conditions, etc. We repeated the experiment several times, even in different laboratories prior to our first submission, always finding the same basic trends (principally the absence or small contribution of the slow phase in the fnr1 mutant). Because of the variation between experiments performed on different days and in different labs, we selected a representative dataset (with the clearest signal) for fitting. We have now repeated the experiment a further 3-6 times for each genotype with plants grown in identical conditions to obtain robust averages, and performed statistical analysis, showing that differences between genotypes are not random. We present these data as a new Figure 4. Several of the phenomena we described in the previous submission are not visible in the individual replicates and are therefore not statistically significant when averaged. These are therefore no longer discussed, and the text has been amended accordingly.

The test interprets the fast and slow rise phases as reflecting more rapidly or more slowly interacting FNR/NADPH pools, as in the following: "We therefore propose that the slow component reflects relocation of FNR from tightly bound tether locations to weak associations elsewhere on the thylakoid."

However, this seems unlikely considering the slow time scale of the slow phases. More likely explanations include the following:

We agree that all the suggestions raised by the reviewer are possible, and that it is important to consider them. However, with respect to reviewer 1 we still believe that our suggestion is (at present) more likely for the reasons stated in the answers to individual points below. We have included a new section (Appendix 1). detailing further characterisation of the NADP+ reduction kinetics to test the hypotheses presented by the reviewer to explain the presence of these two phases.

1) It is also possible that the system is heterogeneous, so that different subpopulations of chloroplasts or pools within chloroplasts behave differently. For instance, the presence of a fraction of broken or damaged chloroplasts could give rise to a slow NADP+ reduction phase;

All chloroplast preparations are by their nature heterogeneous, and we mention in the text that this is a reason for not comparing total amplitudes. We have performed the experiment with deliberately ruptured chloroplasts (Appendix 1—figure 1) which show a considerably lower light dependent signal, greater noise and the absence of the slow kinetic phase. As we now write in the text (Appendix 1), we think that the reason for the residual light dependent activity is that a considerable proportion of chloroplast NADP(H) is thought to be bound to the FNR enzyme (Latouche et al., 2000), and therefore can be reduced effectively even in a ruptured chloroplast system. This experiment does establish that the slow phase of kinetics is dependent on intact chloroplasts.

On the other hand we certainly agree with the reviewer that different pools of NADP(H) within chloroplasts may behave differently.

2) Reduction of other electron carriers, including NADH which would also contribute to blue fluorescence, or bound NAD(P)H which has been reported to have a higher fluorescence yield than their free forms;

Indeed, protein bound NADPH has a higher fluorescence than NADPH free in solution (L.N.M Duysens, G.H.M Kronenberg (1957) BBA, 26: 437-438; T.G Scott, R.D Spencer, N.L Leonard, G Weber (1970) JACS, 92:687-695), and so we initially thought that the slow phase we measure might be due to slow association of NADPH with enzymes. FNR binds a considerable proportion of free NADP+ (Latouche et al., 2000) and it could therefore be that the decreased FNR abundance in the fnr1 mutant might be related to the decreased amplitude of the slow phase. However, heterologous expression of ZmFNR3 in the fnr1 mutant yields Wt levels of FNR, but still fails to rescue the amplitude of this slow phase, suggesting that FNR location, rather than abundance is responsible. This is in line with the findings of Latouche et al. (2000), who conclude that neither protein binding, nor flavins within enzymes (an important consideration when using plants with variable FNR content) contribute to light dependent NADPH fluorescence in isolated chloroplasts after extensive characterisation of the technique, as we now discuss in Appendix 1.

On conducting these experiments we assumed negligible contribution of NADH to the fluorescence, based on the undetectably low NADH levels reported in illuminated, isolated chloroplasts by (Heineke et al., 1991, Plant Physiology 95, 1131). However, since our intial submission, there has been a report that, based on expression of NADPH and NADH responsive fluorescent proteins in cytosol and stroma, NADH levels do indeed rise in the stroma at the onset of light (Lim et al., Nat Comm 11, 3238). FNR affinity for NAD(H) is extremely low (Piubelli et al., 2000) and no enzyme capable of light dependent reduction of NAD⁺ has yet been identified. NADPH dependent reduction of NAD⁺ is possible, as suggested by Lim et al. (2020) and we have tested this in the following way. The dominant pathway for NADPH/NADH interconversion is an internal chloroplast OAA/malate shuttle, comprising NADP(H) malate dehydrogenase and NAD(H) malate dehydrogenase (both present in the chloroplast, see Selinsky and Scheibe 2018). Thiol upregulation of NADP-MDH over a similar time scale as the development of the slow phase makes this a good candidate. We therefore repeated our NADP(H) kinetics experiment with a T-DNA knock out of this enzyme (nadp-mdh), of which an example trace is shown in Appendix 1—figure 1. If light dependent NAD⁺ reduction is contributing to the fluorescence seen in our measurement, then this mutant should show significant perturbation in the kinetics, but instead it shows a nearly identical kinetic pattern to the Wt. This is now discussed in Appendix 1. In our opinion, this means a contribution of NADH to the light dependent kinetics in our chloroplast preparations is unlikely.

3) The slow rise represents is controlled by downstream re-oxidation of previously reduced NADPH. The immediate rise in fluorescence is, indeed, consistent with a model in which a local pool of NADPH goes rapidly reduced when the light is switched on. In this case, The slow rise may reflect NADPH further net reduction of NADPH, but not because of low accessibility of FNR/NADP+ but rather changes in the reoxidation of reduced NADPH. In this case, in initial extent of NADPH reduction is set by competition between reduction and re-oxidation, and the slow rise is caused by either increased in reduction or decreases in re-oxidation. For example, there may be a pool of oxidant for NADPH that is slowly reduced during the slow phase. Or, a local pool of O2 could be depleted during the slow rise time.

If we interpret this comment correctly, the reviewer suggests that the slow phase in Figure 4 could be due to an increase in the rate of NADP⁺ reduction, or a decrease in the rate NADPH oxidation over the “slow phase”. In the first case – this is consistent with what we are suggesting in the paper. We now provide 2 models (Figure 6—figure supplement 1) showing possible ways that NADP⁺ reduction activity and CEF might change according to FNR location over the dark to light transition. We base these models on the fact that the slow phase amplitude correlates with genotypes that have strong FNR: membrane interaction, and that in Wt these interactions are reported to be disrupted in the light (Benz et al., 2009) and at pH values expected in the stroma during the light (Alte et al., 2010).

In the second case, it is possible that, as the reviewer suggests, there could be a decrease in the rate of NADPH consumption. We now mention this in Appendix 1. The reviewer suggests as an example the oxidation of a localised pool of O₂. Although it is hard to understand how this would correlate with tight binding of FNR to Tic62/TROL tethers, we have considered that it could be due to slow saturation of glutathione reduction (by NADPH dependent glutathione reductase), which would be indirectly connected to O₂ reduction. However, in previous work we found that under illumination the glutathione pool of the fnr1 mutant is actually more oxidised than that of the Wt (Kozuleva et al., 2016), which would be at odds with the smaller contribution of the slow phase seen in this mutant in Figure 4. As the data we present in Figure 4 are averages of repetitive measurements on isolated chloroplasts, it is unlikely that it represents exhaustion of a metabolite resulting in a decrease in NADPH oxidation.

Finally, the slow phase seen in our (and other) chloroplast preparations is absent from NADPH fluorescence measurements on cyanobacteria (Kauny and Setif, 2014). In cyanobacteria, FNR is permanently bound to the thylakoid by a phycobilisome linker peptide (Korn et al. 2009, JBC 284, 31789), so movement between complexes / locations is not likely. This indicates that the slow phase of NADP⁺ reduction is either related to a specific property of higher plant FNR (such as interaction with the Tic62/TROL membrane tethers and various other complexes) or chloroplast specific metabolism. This is now also discussed in Appendix 1. We accept that our explanation that the slow phase may be due to FNR dissociating from one complex and re-associating with another (as previously suggested by Johnson and Joliot, among others) could prove to be wrong, but based on current evidence it seems the most likely explanation in our opinion.

The complex, multiphasic decay kinetics in the dark seem to be consistent with this type of model. For example, there are clearly fast phases of decay in fnr1 and fnr1 ZmFNR2 that are not fit to the "simple second order kinetics" model used in the manuscript. (Indeed, there is no strong rationale for using simple second-order kinetics, which assumes that the system is homogeneous but with limiting concentrations of two substrates.) This simple second order model cannot account for the rapid decay phases (see above). For instance, it is possible that a very rapid re-oxidation process would introduce a quite rapid decay phase that, even if small in amplitude, would constitute a large fraction of the flux. Indeed, the kinetics are quite complex and thus simple second order behavior is likely to be an oversimplification. This may also explain the improved fits when modulating the ad hoc Hill cooperativity term.

The differences in NADPH oxidation could not be clearly discerned in all the individual chloroplast preparations, and so we have removed this analysis and any discussion of it from the text. Regarding the Hill coefficient, we acknowledge that the fitting is purely phenomenological and we make no attempt to fit a physical model to the data – it is simply used to obtain some useful characterization of the kinetics. The parameters probably have little physical meaning in and of themselves but in a relative sense they are informative. We chose a Hill type function because neither mono- nor bi-exponential functions provided a reasonable fit. Adding further exponentials would probably improve the fit of the data, but also run the danger of over-fitting.

“We then determined that these differences in NADP(H) kinetics are not due to secondary impact on other PET chain components, by examining abundance of proteins that could impact photosynthetic electron transport or NADP(H) poise (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). We found no differences that correlate to those in NADP(H) reduction and oxidation kinetics.”

This is not a very strong argument. Even with equal content there could be different activities or locations of other enzymes, as is inferred from the other arguments in the manuscript.

The reviewer is right, there could be variation in PET regulation between the genotypes, but establishing that the transgenic approach used has not resulted in changes to the abundance of relevant proteins is a first step to eliminating pleiotropic effects as a factor. If there are regulatory differences, it is more likely that they are at least a response to different FNR activity / location (such as the redox state of Fd or NADP(H)), which we do mention in the text, as pointed out by the reviewer. Nevertheless, we have now changed the text to clarify that protein content does not always equate to activity.

"In both cases this yields a linear relationship. It is reported that FNR interactions with Tic62 and TROL are weakened by exposure to light (Alte et al., 2010, 262 Benz et al., 2009)."

The lack of statistical treatment in this data set is troubling. In Figure 4, the error bars shown in bar graphs are apparently not related to biological or even technical replicates, but to "fitting errors", presumably from a single trace. This issue extends into Figure 5, so it is not possible to conclude that there is a linear relationship or not. The apparent linearity is mostly due to a single point, fnr1, and removing this point would suggest that the relationship is quite different, perhaps an exponential rise or no statistically significant relationship at all. Overall, even though we

Data from our multiple chloroplast preps was not consistent enough for us to draw these conclusions, and so we have removed the former Figure 5, and discussion of it.

As described previously for pea 235 chloroplasts (Schreiber and Klughammer, 2009) and Arabidopsis (Hanke et al., 2008), 9 isolated chloroplasts show distinct components of NADP+ 236 reduction.

"We then assessed the impact of FNR location on photosynthetic electron transport…"

This part of the text makes a rather big leap in inferences from a hypothetical interpretation of blue fluorescence kinetics to the location of the FNR…

If the reviewers is suggesting that the hypothesis that FNR is relocated within the chloroplast is too big a leap, it has previously been proposed in published, peer reviewed work (Joliot and Johnson, 2011). Given the topic of our studies this published hypothesis cannot be easily ignored. This is even more the case given the correlation between NADP(H) fluorescence and FNR location seen when analysing the plants used in this work. The hypothesis is then tested in the experiment shown in Figure 6 later in the manuscript.

“In order to differentiate LEF from CEF, we compared white light illumination (stimulation of both PSI and PSII, and therefore CEF + LEF), with far red light illumination (PSI excitation only, and therefore CEF only).”

This is clearly incorrect. While far red light preferentially excites PSI, it does not exclusively do so, and thus it is not possible to attribute all electron transport or associated signals to CEF under far red light. Also, the previous observation of high CEF during the first 20 s of illumination with light hitting both PSI and PSII were attributed to metabolic or physiological effects of the induction of downstream metabolic processes. It is not at all clear if the same would be true with far red light, nor that it would be comparable in the mutant lines.

We draw the reviewers attention to Figure 5—figure supplement 1, showing the same trend (although with high variation) when using DCMU rather than far red light to differentially stimulate PSII. In addition, as stated in the text (Materials and methods and legend of Figure 5) the illumination period was not under far red light, but actinic light, ensuring that the two treatments are equivalent. The only time far red light is used is for a 20 second period before the ECS measurement. We have modified the text to clarify this further. We do not suggest that any downstream effects are induced during the 20 s illumination, the function of which is to stimulate maximum activity of either both photosystems (actinic light) or preferentially stimulate PSI (far red light). It has previously been published that CEF can be equally assessed from ECS with far red light (as in our work), or Post Illumination Fluorescence Transients (PIFT) (Suorsa et al. (2016). Molecular plant, 9, 271-288).

"Unexpectedly, after dark adaptation the fnr1 mutant, which theoretically has lower Fd oxidation capacity, shows lower acceptor limitation than the other genotypes."

There are several potential issues with these results.

No references are given to the methods.

We have expanded the text in the Materials and methods to explain the methods in more detail, and referenced the Dual-PAM handbook, from where all calculations are taken, rather than setting out the calculations themselves.

The predominant method for making these types of measurements will likely not work in these types of mutants and conditions. Neither the text nor the Materials and methods supply sufficient information to determine important aspects of the experiment, nor are representative traces given, so it is not possible to determine if this is the case.

We have now cited the source of the calculations, and provided more information about the treatment conditions. We draw the reviewers attention to the representative P700 traces given in Figure 5—figure supplement 2. This was previously mentioned only in the figure legends, but we have now also mentioned it in the Materials and methods to make this clearer.

It is important to show the kinetics of the P700 signals because with strong PSI acceptor limitations a strong pulse of actinic light can result in rapid accumulation of electrons on PSI acceptors, preventing one from determining the real amplitude of Pm or Pm'. In many cases, application of far red light minimized this issue, but in the case of fnr1, in which the capacity for oxidation of Fd is constitutively low, it is quite likely that this will not help. Underestimating Pm should artifactually decrease Y(NA).

We did indeed check that our data were not due to underestimation of Pm, but did not include this data in the original manuscript. These are now supplied as a table in Supplementary file 2f, and show a small (but not significant) decrease in the original Pm measurement for the fnr1 mutant, indicating that this is not a significant problem in our measurement. This is now mentioned in the text. In addition, it should be pointed out that following light adaptation, the Y(NA) value of the fnr1 mutant becomes significantly higher (about 200%) than that of other genotypes (Figure 5), implying that the lower value seen after dark adaptation is not an underestimation.

The best way to determine if these issues impact the results is to show the raw traces and look for the transient behavior of the P700+ signal.

See earlier comment above about Figure 5—figure supplement 2.

"The non-photochemical quenching parameters for PSI were calculated with Y(ND) = 1-P700 red. and Y(NA) = (Pm-Pm') / Pm. The effective PSI quantum yield was calculated with Y(I) = 1-Y(ND)-Y(NA). NPQ was calculated by the DUAL-PAM-100 software."

These are not "non-photochemical quenching" parameters, but relative changes in redox states.

This typo has been removed, along with this section of text, which has been replaced by a reference. Many thanks for drawing our attention to it.

"Chloroplasts switch rapidly between LEF and CEF..". One of the best demonstration of the rapid rates of switching between LEF and CEF is Luker et al., who showed it was rapid indeed, on the order of tens of seconds. How can changing the localization of FNR and its interactions with the thylakoid membrane respond this quickly?

We think that FNR relocation is definitely not the only mechanism of regulating CEF/LEF pathways, and probably not the dominant one – especially in high light. It is therefore hard to speculate about which CEF pathway is being measured in the work by Luker et al. based on our findings. However, we can elaborate on the suggestion we make in the discussion: FNR interactions with TROL and Tic62 tethers are subject to pH regulation (Alte et al., 2010), weakening as pH rises in the stroma. The change in Δ pH at the onset of light happens on the timescale of seconds or tens of seconds, providing a possible prompt for FNR release. In terms of association with (presumably) PSI and antennae (as shown by Marco et al., 2019), nothing is known about regulation, but given the failure to detect it in blue native gels it must be weaker than with TROL or Tic62. In the absence of other evidence to date, our assumption is that this interaction takes place by default on release from Tic62/TROL on a timescale of tens of seconds. We hope to examine this in future work.

Reviewer #2:

This is a strong contribution that analyzes the correlation between the distribution of FNR alone sections of the chloroplast and the characteristics of cyclic electron flow. The topic addresses important controversial question about how cyclic electron transport is transiently upregulated and them down regulated during the dark light transition ---- a brief period when excess light energy cannot yet be adequately utilized because the time it takes to activate the carbon fixation reactions of the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. Significance also relates to The fact that similar regulatory features are probably necessary for the protection stabilization of the photosynthetic mechanism in fluctuating environmental conditions. Therefore, I rate the overall significance this manuscript as high.

Technically, this appears to be a well-executed set of wisely chosen experiments. There are some grammatical issues, but overall the manuscript is clearly written with interesting discussions. Apart from some clarifications on the interpretation of the kinetics, I find no serious glitches in this article and offer only a few minor additional suggestions:

It would be a good idea to briefly define what control coefficient means since this aspect of metabolic theory is not so widely studied, despite its importance.

We have included a definition in the text.

Results paragraph seven (this paragraph and next):

This discussion would benefit from some re-working to clarify. After finishing the Discussion I can see what they were after, but the initial description of the kinetic features needs clarification. Later on a graphical model would also help.

The paragraph, and a section of the discussion have been re-written to try and improve clarity. We are reluctant to include a model as a main figure, as we believe this is still quite speculative, but we now present two possible alternative graphical models as an additional Figure in Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

Figure 4 is fit with two components, yet the discussion would seem to imply a third sequential component that needs to be accounted for in the fit. If the strongly bound form is not simply "less efficient", but essentially inactive, then slow component refers to the time of diffusion and (or release assuming very fast diffusion). In that case, the third component could be essentially invisible, if the proposed diffusional excursion ends with much faster process. Intermediate situations would be a more complex situation and I think it would probably appear as a more sigmoidal characteristic of the slow phase as those mobilized convert to faster activity. Don't know if this makes sense, but definitely the authors need to better express their ideas in the context of a model.

This is an excellent point, and we thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. We have amended the text about dissociation, and removed the speculation about weak associations from the Results section, and now integrate it into the Discussion, amended to try and better express that i) dissociation, diffusion and association could be expected to contribute 3 distinct components, ii) that one of these components is either silent (possibly because of inactivation on binding), or too fast to be detected.

I think this is not a change in efficiency but the existence of two parallel reactions with different efficiencies (see above).

We agree with the reviewer that this is highly likely, and we have amended the text to simply state that the slowly increasing phase of NADP⁺ reduction kinetics (rather than any change in enzymatic efficiency) is on the same time scale. In addition, this possibility is presented in Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

The authors should consider the recent finding that the NADH-1 complex appears not to use NADPH, but Fd which would be in line with their interpretation.

We have now incorporated this information.

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Essential revisions:

The reviewers judged that the current revisions corrected most of the issues, mainly by eliminating some areas of over-interpretation and narrowing the focus of the discuss. However, some important problems remain, especially regarding the interpretation of the NADPH florescence kinetics. As brought up by reviewer #1 in the first review, and further expanded on be reviewer #2 in the second review, the biphasic characteristics of the fluorescence rise can have multiple interpretations, and this issue has not been addressed in the revised text, which still sticks to an over-simplistic interpretation and the text needs to introduce other possible interpretations especially because the data presented thus far cannot exclude them. The reviewer and editor feel that an acknowledgement and full discussion of these possibilities is not only essential for the science, it will strengthen the paper substantially.

The paper may be acceptable for publication if this, and the smaller issues brought up by reviewer #2, can be addressed. In particular, the revision must address the inaccurate interpretation of the Kauny/Setif reference and discuss possible alternative interpretations of the fast and slow phases of the NADPH kinetics.

This comparison with cyanobacteria is no longer made. We have included new paragraphs discussing other interpretations of the slow phase of NADPH kinetics in the results, discussion and Appendix. Moreover, we have removed the final paragraph of the Discussion to temper the argument.

Reviewer #2

By and large the questions have been mostly addressed, however some problems remain regarding the NADPH florescence kinetics, specifically their biphasic characteristics of their rise. The authors still have not excluded other downstream processes as being responsible for the slow phase. These can be slowly changing fast rates of redox sinks. In other words, these can be relatively fast NADPH consumption process (very fast relative to the times scales of the experiment), but their rates can be slowly changing. The argument post about the lack of biphasicity cyanobacteria (Kauny/Setif reference) is not accurate: although clearly different kinetics, with different shapes are involved in cyanobacteria, the slower phases are clearly visible and actually correlate to things like state transitions and the activation of the Calvin cycle. Accordingly, processes downstream of PSET (but interacting due to back-propagation effects) seem to be responsible for these multi second kinetic features.

The discussion of cyanobacterial NADP(H) kinetics has been removed from the Appendix text.

Since there are intact chloroplasts, it is clearly possible such effects are present in the current experiments. Thus the argument based on measuring the abundance of electron transport chain components is not sufficient to strongly argue against the dominance of downstream processes in governing the slower phase. This needs to be clearly articulated in the main results text as well as in discussion. That said, the hypothesis that relocation accounts for these phases is not excluded either and altogether the interpretations seem to hold together. Nevertheless, the cited weakness needs to temper the strength of the arguments.

We agree, and on reflection this should have been spelled out more clearly in the text. We have now introduced this possibility in the Results section, and expanded on it in more detail in the discussion and Appendix 1.

Author details

1. Manuela Kramer

   1. School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
   2. Department of Plant Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Melvin Rodriguez-Heredia

   School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Francesco Saccon

   School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Laura Mosebach

   Institute of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Manuel Twachtmann

   Department of Plant Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Anja Krieger-Liszkay

   Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell (I2BC), CEA, CNRS, Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Chris Duffy

   School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Robert J Knell

   School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3446-8715

9. Giovanni Finazzi

   Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire et Végétale, UMR 5168, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Commissariat a` l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA), Université Grenoble Alpes, Institut National Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Institut de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour le Vivant (iRTSV), CEA Grenoble, Grenoble, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Guy Thomas Hanke

    1. School of Biochemistry and Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Department of Plant Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Project administration

    For correspondence

    g.hanke@qmul.ac.uk

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6167-926X

• 3,009

  Page views

• 446

  Downloads

• 15

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.