Skip to main content
. 2010 Jul 21;99(2):344–352. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.04.039

Table 2.

Couplings between pigments (cm−1) calculated using the PCM-CIS/6-31G method with ɛst = 15 and ɛop = 2.0

Pigment PEB50/61C DBVA DBVB PEB82C PEB158C PEB50/61D PEB82D PEB158D
PEB50/61C 1 (3) −37 (−42) 37 (33) 23 (29) 92 (71) −16 (−15) 12 (10)
DBVA 1 (3) 4 (−7) −11 (−17) 33 (20) −39 (−44) 46 (−69) 3(3)
DBVB −37 (−42) −4 (−7) 45 (−69) 3 (4) 2 (4) −11 (−17) 34 (18)
PEB82C 37 (33) −11 (−17) 45 (−69) −7 (−7) −17 (−17) −3 (−4) 6 (7)
PEB158C 23 (29) 33 (20) 3 (4) −7 (−7) 18 (16) 7 (8) 6 (6)
PEB50/61D 92 (71) −39 (−44) 2 (4) 17 (−17) 18 (16) 40 (35) 26 (32)
PEB82D −16 (−15) 46 (−69) −11 (−17) −3 (−4) 7 (8) 40 (35) 7 (−7)
PEB158D 12 (10) 3 (3) 34 (18) 6 (7) 6 (6) 26 (32) 7 (−7)

Values predicted by the ideal dipole approximation assuming an effective screening and local field factor s = 0.72 are indicated in parentheses for comparison. The biggest couplings are indicated in bold. The factor s = 9ɛop/(2ɛop+1)2 = 0.72 scaling point dipole couplings is obtained by assuming a Förster screening term (1/ɛop) and Onsager local field factors 3ɛop/(2ɛop+1) for each chromophore (20).

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure