{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02546816479400749, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012734082397003745, 'mean_word_length': 5.100456621004566, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The ability of actinic light to modify the bacteriorhodopsin photocycle revisited: heterogeneity vs photocooperativity.

In 1995, evidence both for photocooperativity and for heterogeneity as possible explanations for the ability of actinic light to modify the kinetics and pathways of the bacteriorhodopsin (BR) photocycle was reviewed ( Shrager, R. I., Hendler, R. W., and Bose, S. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 229, 589-595 ). Because both concepts could be successfully modeled to experimental data and there was suggestive published evidence for both, it was concluded that both photocooperativity and heterogeneity may be involved in the adaptation of the BR photocycle to different levels of actinic light. Since that time, more information has become available and it seemed appropriate to revisit the original question. In addition to the traditional models based on all intermediates in strict linear sequences, we have considered both homogeneous and heterogeneous models with branches. It is concluded that an explanation based on heterogeneity is more likely to be the true basis for the variation of the properties of the photocycle caused by changes in actinic light intensity. On the basis of new information presented here, it seems that a heterogeneous branched model is more likely than one with separate linear sequences.