Any time I read a mitochondria post like this, I strongly recommend that others who find the topic interesting check out Power, Sex, and Suicide by Nick Lane.
Excellent book!
Mitochondria Are Alive
41–50 of 412 posts
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#42Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Can you describe the distinction?
Distinction: I am a millennial, and actually had to go look up just now what a "powerhouse" is. I am familiar with the term in its metaphorical sense, but was heretofore unacquainted with the literal definition. "Power plant" or "power station" would, yes, be more immediately understood by my generation. The phrase "Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" would read to modern children like saying "The mitochondrion is the rock star of the cell."
These things do happen. I was in my 30s before I learned what the "firewall" of a car was...
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why are you insisting on this comparison to ribosomes? They’re both interesting.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#45> Mitochondrial DNA mutates 100-1,000 times faster than the human genome
This statement is very interesting for two reasons:
1) We not consider mitochondrial DNA as part of the human genome when it's clearly is and can be used to establish the maternal genetic lineage.
2) Traditionally, we always think of telomere reduction and genetic mutations as the root cause of aging but not mitochondrial genetic damages.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
I _think_ what they mean is it's not typically listed as a "life form" in its own right, i.e., there's no Domain under which one would classify Mitochondria - maybe just calling them bacteria would capture the article's intent?
So, the modification would be that we are living in symbiosis with mitochondrial bacteria, similar to how we live in symbiosis with our gut bacteria, rather than them being classified as "organelles" of eukaryote cells.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#47> If one considers bacteria as living entities — and all biologists seem to — then it is impossible to explain why mitochondria are not. There seems to be a strange, half-hubris, half-pride vein that runs through Humanity that would see us as lesser for being hosts to benevolent bacteria, despite us very obviously being unable to survive without benevolent bacteria.
I think it just attacks the wholeness of ‘self’ and starts to reveal the true complexity of nature.
We didn't evolve to understand "self", and indeed most animals do not. There was no evolutionary pressure to do so. We're having to discover it piece by piece.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#48As 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.
It's interesting, could you expand on thus?
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#49Any time I read a mitochondria post like this, I strongly recommend that others who find the topic interesting check out Power, Sex, and Suicide by Nick Lane. Excellent book!
+1 to Nick Lane
I’ve only read The Vital Question, but I felt it was a great introduction to biochem for someone not in the field.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
Depends on your definition of organelle (whether you limit it to plastids/mitochondria, both of which were derived from external independent living cells, or use a more expansive definition that includes more cell compartments that weren't derived from independent living cells).
General acceptance of the endosymbiont theory is a relatively recent (much less than 50 years) phenomenon.