4 ms·
> Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. Are they? I was under the impression that mitochondria are closer to pseudo-cells
by thinkling 2y ago
> Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA.
Are they? I was under the impression that mitochondria are closer to pseudo-cells living inside human cells.
Wikipedia seems to confirm this [1]:
> Although most of a eukaryotic cell's DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, the mitochondrion has its own genome ("mitogenome") that is substantially similar to bacterial genomes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion
- kylebenzle 2y agoOP above you is correct. Maybe you are thinking about it wrong?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bonzini 2y agoSee below on Wikipedia: "Most proteins necessary for mitochondrial function are encoded by genes in the cell nucleus and the corresponding proteins are imported into the mitochondrion. The exact number of genes encoded by the nucleus and the mitochondrial genome differs between species."
- melagonster 2y agoyes, Human mitochondria only generate less than 20 types of protein; all other things they need are from cytoplasm.
- ale42 2y agoThere's a specific page on Wikipedia about Mitochondrial DNA [1], where it is clearly said that: In the cells of extant organisms, the vast majority of the proteins in the mitochondria (numbering approximately 1500 different types in mammals) are coded by nuclear DNA, but the genes for some, if not most, of them are thought to be of bacterial origin, having been transferred to the eukaryotic nucleus during evolution. (citing [2]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA [2] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cels.2016.01.013 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cels.2016.01.013
- 725686 2y agoThey were, originally. Over the eons, they have lost many of their original genes. Source: Nick Lanes fantastic books, specially Power, Sex, Suicide
- thinkling 2y agoSaw another recommendation for that book in this discussion and will be reading it. Thanks.
- amy-petrik-214 2y agoYea I would def. not call mitochondria "alive" since they are so deeply integrated with the rest of the cell & vice versa. mito is like <100k bp vs 3000000k bp in human genome (bp = base pair = "character" in a string) principle derives from the concept of "the selfish gene" or "the red queen" these famous books on the topic. Arms races between X and Y chromosome. Arms race between nucleus and mitochondria, and so on. or put it this way. why do all animals have sex? because it generates gene sequences that confer fitness more efficiently than self-replication (which is the typical repro method of unix programmers)... .. generates such gene sequences for NUCLEAR DNA that is, mito DNA comes from mom only (the red queen.. .. "mitochondrial eve" ... "y chromosomal adam".. etc). and thus the mito is fundamentally unable to wield the power of evolution, completely evolutionarily outclassed by those nuclear chromosomes. thus exporting all its genes to the nucleus, conferring advantage to all such progeny with their superior power supply
- Tor3 2y agoI don't understand this definition of "alive". Isn't every cell in my body alive? There are definitely differences between an alive cell and a dead one.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago> There are definitely differences between an alive cell and a dead one. Energy flow is the difference. but then everything has an energy flow. Losing and gaining electrons. So it is possible that literally everything is alive, don’t you think? Maybe the problem is is that we’re trying to make a definition where none ultimately really exists.