3 ms·
that very much contradicts my model of organisms as well. I thought we ARE 95% germs, DNA wise.
by singularity2001 8y ago
that very much contradicts my model of organisms as well.
I thought we ARE 95% germs, DNA wise.
- jessriedel 8y agoProkaryotes are thousands of times smaller in mass/volume, so most cells (and maybe even most DNA) can be bacteria while these are nonetheless minor players.
- etatoby 8y agoA side note to passing readers: thousands of times smaller in mass or volume means of course only tens of times smaller in diameter, which agrees with the pictures shown in the article and elsewhere.
- jessriedel 8y agoYea. The comparison of humans to cockroaches is a useful intuition. Or blue whales to cats.
- Bartweiss 8y agoThis is definitely part of it, the estimates claiming 90% bacteria by cell count end up suggesting perhaps a half gallon of actual bacterial volume. As far as DNA, I think the parent stat can't hold for base pairs. Not as a volume issue, but because mammalian genomes are ~3 orders of magnitude larger than bacterial ones. Even at a 10:1 cell count, our base pairs would be 99% human. Most importantly, though, the 10:1 stat is just outdated. Newer estimates put the number around 1.3:1 instead. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- jessriedel 8y agoThis comment was super interesting, thank you.