Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mitochondria Are Alive

asimov.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 412 posts

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#31

Post by Teever »

adastra22 wrote: post #12
Teever wrote: post #4

As a layman I'm kind of baffled by the enduring pop-sci interest in mitochondria. To me the far more interesting organelle is the ribosome. This elegant self-replicating machine that is highly conserved across lifeforms is fascinating and much closer to the origin of life than mitochondria. How did ribosomes evolve? Are the ribosomes that we see in modern organisms the first design that did evolve? Why are they highl…

The mitochondria and their dysfunction are likely the basis of most aspects of aging, so an intensive interest in them is understandable.

That's a debatable statement and it doesn't explain the public appeal of mitochondria over ribosomes that predates recent research on the relationship between mitochondria and aging.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#33

Post by dendrite9 »

cmiller1 wrote: post #10
rustcleaner wrote: post #5

I expect such lively news to make this comment section the powerhouse of the front page. :^)

It's funny that this phrase has had such staying strength, while the key word in it, "powerhouse," has fallen out of fashion. The more modern American English way to phrase it would be "the power plant of the cell."

That's an interesting thought, I haven't picked up on it but you're right. Most of my associations with powerhouse are from trails or ares that used to have powerhouses and now have empty buildings, ruins or traces left over. I do think about powerhouses in the context of dams but that is likely leftover from an earlier time.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#34

Post by hildolfr »

cmiller1 wrote: post #10
rustcleaner wrote: post #5

I expect such lively news to make this comment section the powerhouse of the front page. :^)

It's funny that this phrase has had such staying strength, while the key word in it, "powerhouse," has fallen out of fashion. The more modern American English way to phrase it would be "the power plant of the cell."

It kind of just shifted distinctions.

Powerhouse is a common way to describe an athlete, a high performance engine, or a very strong stock buy -- it has just moved away from the infrastructural uses.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#36

Post by marcosdumay »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #22
adastra22 wrote: post #14

I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?

"If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles..." mitochondria were thought to just be a component of the cell. But they have their own DNA separate from that in the cell's nucleus. They replicate on their own like bacteria.

> mitochondria were thought to just be a component of the cell.

... hundreds of years ago, for a short time after they were discovered.

We know that they behave like bacteria for almost as long as we know that they exist.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#37

Post by adastra22 »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #22
adastra22 wrote: post #14

I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?

"If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles..." mitochondria were thought to just be a component of the cell. But they have their own DNA separate from that in the cell's nucleus. They replicate on their own like bacteria.

Organelles are alive too. All active biological systems are alive.

Mitochondria have for many generations now been known to have their own DNA and replicate on their own. So I’m not sure what new distinction is being drawn?

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#38

Post by semperdark »

georgeecollins wrote: post #25
ssalka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's similar to how viruses are not considered to be alive, since they cannot reproduce without a host cell? But I have never been a fan of that argument either, both seem alive to me.

I think the idea here is that mitochondria developed independent of cells and later lived exclusively inside of them. In other words, they reproduced without cells. I am not sure, please correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong. But over the enormous amount of time since, the "duplicate" organelles and systems needed for independent living were steadily carved out of mitochondria. While they do have their own DNA and replication process, the DNA is basically limited to specific things they need to perform their energy-generation functions and the replication happens when triggered by host cell replication.

It's a bit like if you took the heart from an animal and transplanted it into a human: is it meaningful to call it independently alive? Maybe, it depends what question you're trying to ask.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#40

Post by marcosdumay »

netcraft wrote: post #8

this is the first ive heard of mitochondria replicating separately and distinctly from the host cell, how fascinating! Are we saying that mitochondria have their own life cycle inside of a cell? living/dying/replicating in the span of the "life" of a single host cell? When a host cell reproduces, how does the mitochondria get produced in the new cell to get things started? Cant wait to research this later.

> When a host cell reproduces, how does the mitochondria get produced in the new cell to get things started?

Each half of the cell keeps the mitocondria that were living inside it.

Post reply on HN