4 ms·
>Defining mitochondria as “nonliving” isn’t just a classification mistake, nor a question of word choice. Rather, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the na
by MostlyStable 2y ago
>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.
This assertion is made but not supported. I don't think I understand the importance of this distinction, assuming that everyone already agrees about the evolutionary and mechanical facts about mitochondria, but as far as I can tell, no one disagrees that mitochondria were originally free living cells, or that they have their own DNA, or any of the other relevant facts about their origins or how they work in the cell. It's merely an argument about what it means to be alive. Which is philosophically interesting, but practically unimportant for the practice of biology.
This seems like a purely semantic debate with no broader importance.
- wrycoder 2y agoFrom an article cited in the OP [0], More than 95% of all proteins located in the mitochondrial compartments are encoded by the nuclear DNA, synthesized in cytoplasmic ribosomes and imported into mitochondria. These include factors that regulate mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) gene expression such as mtDNA and RNA polymerases, mitochondrial transcription factors, RNA processing and modifying enzymes, transcription termination factors, mitochondrial ribosomal proteins, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and translation factors (1, 2). It's clear that a mitrochondrial element can't live for long without the presence of the host cells, so, like a virus, it doesn't meet all the requirements to be considered fully living. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC23071/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC23071/