Rev Up Photosynthesis to Boost Crop Yields

Photosynthesis actually is an inefficient process, but a biological chemist is trying to crank it up. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Photosynthesis is surprisingly inefficient, only of the order of 1 to 2 percent. And one of the main culprits is an enzyme called RuBisCo.”

Laura Barter, a biological chemist at Imperial College London. Scientific American Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina recorded these comments when they chatted at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos.

That enzyme RuBisCo? Because it’s vital for the first major step in photosynthesis, it’s probably the most abundant enzyme on the planet. And it’s worked fine for a very long time. But for our needs, we humans want it to work better.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“And I’m very interested in trying to improve upon this enzyme because it’s both slow and it also suffers from a lack of specificity. And it can catalyze a reaction with carbon dioxide that you want, but also a competing reaction with oxygen. And, so we’re looking at ways that we can enhance the local concentration of carbon dioxide around RuBisCo to increase its efficiency—and ultimately increase crop yield.”

Barter explained how she’s trying to do that at a talk she gave at the Forum:

“There are a suite of enzymes that are involved in the capture and release of carbon dioxide and we’re synthesizing some molecules that can mimic this behavior. With the hope that they can be sprayed on crops much in the same way as a fertilizer. And will be taken up by the plant and will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide around RuBisCo inside the plant and increase its activity and photosynthetic yields. Now, we have already synthesized this suite of molecules and have shown that they can capture and release carbon dioxide and we’re testing their effect on RuBisCo that’s been extracted from plants and seeing really, really, exciting results.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe