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

81–90 of 412 posts

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#81

Post by Teever »

adastra22 wrote: post #44
Teever wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm just wondering why we always see pop-sci mitochondria content but no ribosome videos.

I think it's the catchy nickname "powerhouse of the cell."

Ribosomes don't have a catch nickname so they get a lot less content produced about them.

If I was a highschool biology teacher I'd probably call them "The assembly line of life." That would stick in people's minds I bet.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#82

Post by davideg »

andrewla wrote: post #54

I read the article waiting for an answer to the question "in what operational sense does this matter?" but it never arrived. The question posed is whether we consider mitochondria to be "alive". It's just a word, who cares. What do we do differently given this assumption?

> Defining mitochondria as “nonliving” isn’t just a classification mistake, nor a question of word choice. Rather, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of mitochondria. It inherently undermines our understanding of biological systems and deeply influences the tools we build to study them.

Once you accept mitochondria as alive, you might be motivated to explore its "potential" niche, as described by the author. The example of implanting cross-species mitochondria in human cells (e.g. from a gorilla) might lead to novel therapies.

It's about breaking outside the box of mitochondria having to live inside specific environments.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#83

Post by dekhn »

andrewla wrote: post #54

I read the article waiting for an answer to the question "in what operational sense does this matter?" but it never arrived. The question posed is whether we consider mitochondria to be "alive". It's just a word, who cares. What do we do differently given this assumption?

It matters for a number of reasons, but the main reason in terms of pure biology is that it was not originally recognized that cells could absorb other cells and utilize them for the absorbed cell's natural function.

This meant, importantly, that we learned cells did not always need to evolve a functionality from scratch, but could acquire it through phagocytosis.

It's also a useful tool for studying evolution for many reasons.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#84

Post by andrewla »

The_Colonel wrote: post #73
pizzathyme wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Seems similar to "are LLMs alive"? What practical purpose would an answer to that question serve?

That seems to be an overly reductive view on the value of knowledge. What practical purpose does studying ancient civilizations have? Why do we send expensive telescopes into space to study faraway galaxies and try to uncover mysteries of the big bang? When can we expect the results from number theory to lower the price of gas at the pump?

But the definition of a word is not knowledge.

Knowing that mitochondria have their own DNA is knowledge. Knowing that they reproduce independently of their home cell is knowledge. Learning whether they evolved from a separate viable organism would be knowledge. Learning whether we can make them viable, or breed them separately, and use them in therapies -- all knowledge.

Whether they are "alive" or not is just the definition of a word.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#85

Post by armoredkitten »

Talking about what is considered "alive" is an interesting exercise, and shows just how fuzzy those boundaries can be sometimes. But I really don't see how this has any practical impact on how we study mitochondria.

> If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?

Whenever anyone uses the "harnessing [its] full potential" cliché, my bullshit alarm starts buzzing. I don't think this article is bullshit, but...we can "harness" as much "potential" as mitochondria have whether we consider them alive or not.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#86

Post by outworlder »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Mitochondria are why I’m a Rare Earther. In Earth’s history, mitochondrial endosymbiosis occurred once. Without that you don’t have the energy budget for complex life. Moreover, there may be a narrow window where it can happen: modern microbiology has defences and selection pressures that it make inhospitable to the hobbling chimeræ the first mitochondrial cells would have been. Until mitochondria, the emergence of l…

Mitochondria seems to have been an 'accident', yes.

That does not mean that other lifeforms in different planets require mitochondria or equivalent organelles. As long as they can perform the necessary chemical reactions (which could be different in a different environments) and extract enough energy, they should be good.

How did mitochondria evolve in the first place? Could they have remained as independent organisms and use their massive energy budget to evolve independently?

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#87

Post by [deleted] »

The_Colonel wrote: post #73
pizzathyme wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Seems similar to "are LLMs alive"? What practical purpose would an answer to that question serve?

That seems to be an overly reductive view on the value of knowledge. What practical purpose does studying ancient civilizations have? Why do we send expensive telescopes into space to study faraway galaxies and try to uncover mysteries of the big bang? When can we expect the results from number theory to lower the price of gas at the pump?

[deleted]

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#88

Post by andrewla »

davideg wrote: post #82
andrewla wrote: post #54

I read the article waiting for an answer to the question "in what operational sense does this matter?" but it never arrived. The question posed is whether we consider mitochondria to be "alive". It's just a word, who cares. What do we do differently given this assumption?

> Defining mitochondria as “nonliving” isn’t just a classification mistake, nor a question of word choice. Rather, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of mitochondria. It inherently undermines our understanding of biological systems and deeply influences the tools we build to study them. Once you accept mitochondria as alive, you might be motivated to explore its "potential" niche, as describe…

So the theory is that if we don't accept them as alive, then we can't experiment with implanting cross-species mitochondria in human cells? Why not? What stops us from doing this?

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#89

Post by maxerickson »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Mitochondria are why I’m a Rare Earther. In Earth’s history, mitochondrial endosymbiosis occurred once. Without that you don’t have the energy budget for complex life. Moreover, there may be a narrow window where it can happen: modern microbiology has defences and selection pressures that it make inhospitable to the hobbling chimeræ the first mitochondrial cells would have been. Until mitochondria, the emergence of l…

So only a few billion planets with complex life?

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#90

Post by arcticbull »

IAmNotACellist wrote: post #71

The fact that every child on the planet is religiously taught that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell is all the evidence I need that we're upholding a primordial contractual agreement and these are the conditions to which we are beholden. Name a single biological entity that has a better PR department. The only one that comes close is Athlete's Foot, which makes the victim sound cool.

Unfortunately Jock Itch (the same type of fungus) didn't get the same PR treatment.
Post reply on HN