“Take a little sunshine. Take some carbon dioxide molecules out of the
air. Take some hydrogen atoms out of water. Shuffle them around inside a
bunch of little green chloroplasts inside green plant cells. What do you
get?
That's right. It's GLUCOSE and OXYGEN!â€
Back in September, as one of the comments about this sort of stuff, Jim
Perry wrote “I have seen the page proofs of the new chapter on
photosynthesis for the new version of Biology of Plants by Raven, Evert
and Eichhorn. Glucose is no longer the formulaic end product, but rather
C3H6O3â€
C3H6O3 may be preferable to glucose but, (not having seen the proofs of
‘Biology of Plants’ myself, I wonder, yet again, about the overall
equation itself? If it is written
3CO2 +3H2O → C3H6O3+ 3O2
there will remain the implication that some of the oxygen evolved must
be derived from carbon dioxide.
If additional water is added on the left to avoid this, as in
3CO2 +6H2O → C3H6O3+ 3O2 +3H2O
it poses the question of what the additional water is doing there when
it then reappears on the right.
In reality, if we add together all of the partial reactions of the
Benson-Calvin Cycle we get
3 CO2+ 2H2O + H3PO4 → CH2OH.CO.CH2OPO(OH)2 + 3O2
but if this is too much for students to handle why don’t we all avoid
unnecessary confusion by saying that the principal end-product of
photosynthetic carbon assimilation is sucrose? This is undoubtedly where
much of the triosephosphate ends up as the carbon source for much of
plant metabolism. Of course sucrose isn't made in the chloroplast but
then neither is glucose. At least I know of no firm evidence that free
glucose is either made, or is an important metabolite within, chloroplasts.
Am I right?
Regards
David Walker
See also:- <http://www.digitalpublisher.co.uk/Oxygraphics/ohwhat.htm >
David R. Hershey - 25 Jan 2005 23:41 GMT
Sucrose is certainly a good choice as a major product of photosynthesis
for many species. Starch is probably an even better choice. Even better
is to mention both because some species produce little starch in their
leaves. I think a C3 product is at least better than saying glucose is
the product.
Historically, starch was recognized as the first visible product of
photosynthesis by Julius Sachs in the 1860s. Starch grains accumulate
in chloroplasts of many species during photosynthesis. Other good
reasons for using starch as the major product of photosynthesis is that
students can easily identify starch in leaves using the iodine test. It
really helps students remember concepts if they demonstrate the concept
to themselves, and they can easily test for starch in leaves. They
cannot easily test for C3 products of photosynthesis.
I believe that the reasons why glucose is so often used as the major
product of photosynthesis in textbooks is to make the summary equation
for photosynthesis simpler and the exact reverse of the summary
equation for cellular respiration. C6H12O6 as the product makes the
summary equation easier to balance than with starch or sucrose. It is
an oversimplication without telling students that it is an
oversimplication or explaining why.
Ganong (1908) does not have the term glucose in his index or mention it
in his lengthy discussion on photosynthesis. He refers to C6H12O6 in
his photosynthesis summary equation as "photosynthate" and states "the
chemical composition of the photosynthate approximates to C6H12O6,
which may be taken as a conventional formula for the photosynthate in
general." Even he, the leading botany teacher of his era, didn't fully
explain the apparent contradiction that he wrote C6H12O6 in the summary
equation but emphasized starch formation during photosynthesis:
"The student is here in contact with one of the most significant facts
in all organic nature, viz., the appearance of starch in lighted green
leaves."
David R. Hershey
dh321@excite.com
Reference
Ganong, W.F. 1908. A Laboratory Course in Plant Physiology. New York:
Henry Holt.