Why do mitochondria have their own DNA?

[wellwisher]

From Plazma Inferno:

A new study may have found an answer to one of the big mysteries of cell biology. Scientists think that mitochondria were once independent single-celled organisms until, more than a billion years ago, they were swallowed by larger cells. Instead of being digested, they settled down and developed a mutually beneficial relationship developed with their hosts that eventually enabled the rise of more complex life, like today’s plants and animals.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/why-do-our-cell-s-power-plants-have-their-own-dna

A step forward endosymbiont theory?

One problem with this theory is the question, why did it the mitochondria settle as parters and not use the cell as source of materials, so it can dominate the cell? The cell has its own way to make energy molecules which makes it easier for the mitochondria. The cell can also use its products, allowing the mitochondria to push reactions forward, easier.

The accept theory is pseudo-science, done by consensus. How do you prove this claim, and what is the logic other than the mitochondria randomly won a lottery, and they and the cell ironed out a treaty where the mitochondria would limit itself to symbiosis. Evolution allows insider pseudo-science.

A more rational answer is connected to chemical equilibrium in water.

 

[James R]

One problem with this theory is the question, why did it the mitochondria settle as parters and not use the cell as source of materials, so it can dominate the cell?

Because symbiosis was evolutionarily more advantageous for the mitochondria and the cells they inhabit.

The cell has its own way to make energy molecules which makes it easier for the mitochondria.

Energy molecules? What are you talking about?

The accept theory is pseudo-science, done by consensus.

You have not shown this. Do you have a problem with scientists agreeing with one another?

How do you prove this claim, and what is the logic other than the mitochondria randomly won a lottery, and they and the cell ironed out a treaty where the mitochondria would limit itself to symbiosis.

You look at the evidence for and against the theory. It's what happens in science all the time.

Evolution allows insider pseudo-science.

All science allows insider pseudo-science. Fortunately, science is self-correcting. Errors get spotted.

A more rational answer is connected to chemical equilibrium in water.

Answer to what?

 

[timojin]

All science allows insider pseudo-science. Fortunately, science is self-correcting. Errors get spotted.

But in the mean wile the bandwagon scientist crap upon other theory

 

[Edont Knoff]

One problem with this theory is the question, why did it the mitochondria settle as parters and not use the cell as source of materials, so it can dominate the cell?

This question was already answered by James R.

There are more examples of symbiosis, where it's better to cooperate than to dominate. E.g. lichen are made from algae and fungi. They can dwell in places where neither algae nor fungi could dwell on their own.

We have bacteriae in our intestines which help us to digest food. We eat for them, provide housing and shelter, they get a share in food even, but in return we get byproducts of their work which are beneficial for us and at least some of them help to keep bad bacteriae at bay.

It's better for us to keep them. Even keep them well and healthy, as new studies showed.

Trees and funghi also form symbiotic relations. Some plants have bacteriae dwelling in the roots, and it's a deal again - shelter and food supply in exchange to access to substances like nitrogene iones, which plants can't create on their own, but which they need for growing.

Domination isn't always the better choice.

 

[timojin]

This question was already answered by James R.

There are more examples of symbiosis, where it's better to cooperate than to dominate. E.g. lichen are made from algae and fungi. They can dwell in places where neither algae nor fungi could dwell on their own.

We have bacteriae in our intestines which help us to digest food. We eat for them, provide housing and shelter, they get a share in food even, but in return we get byproducts of their work which are beneficial for us and at least some of them help to keep bad bacteriae at bay.

It's better for us to keep them. Even keep them well and healthy, as new studies showed.

Trees and funghi also form symbiotic relations. Some plants have bacteriae dwelling in the roots, and it's a deal again - shelter and food supply in exchange to access to substances like nitrogene iones, which plants can't create on their own, but which they need for growing.

Domination isn't always the better choice.

I can see the symbiotic effect as you are pointing , but that seams different in the case of mitochondrial . I can kill my gut bacteria and I will continue living , If I kill my mitochondria I will not live

 

[Edont Knoff]

I can see the symbiotic effect as you are pointing , but that seams different in the case of mitochondrial . I can kill my gut bacteria and I will continue living , If I kill my mitochondria I will not live

If you kill the algea in a lichen, the funghi will die ... some symbiosis are tighter than others. I don't think this disproves the point that partnership is at time better than domination.

I'm not sure how long you'll survice if you kill all your gut bacteria (and don't allow any growing back or settling again, you usually take some of them in with your food too). You'll suffer from dramatic diarrhoe and need to keep a special diet, likely also take food supplements. Biology and medicine are not my primary domains, but from what I read, the bacteria in our intestines are needed. Frankly, without the bacteria in your intestines I expect you to die within a few weeks. Mineral loss, water loss, inflammated guts and eventually poisoning from malfunctioning, damaged, porose inestines, which cannot keep problematic substances anymore from entering your blood.

A slow death, likely, and not a pleasant one.

 

[PhysBang]

A more rational answer is connected to chemical equilibrium in water.

A statement like that shows you to be irrational.

Let's see a single prediction from your water theory, how it arrives at this prediction, and how we can use that prediction to test your water theory. Without anything like that, you have worse than nothing,

 

[timojin]

A statement like that shows you to be irrational.

Let's see a single prediction from your water theory, how it arrives at this prediction, and how we can use that prediction to test your water theory. Without anything like that, you have worse than nothing,

Mitocondria is the subject and your insult to yourself.. Every one of us have an opinion ,not everybody have to join the band wagon.

 

[origin]

The accept theory is pseudo-science, done by consensus.

The only illogical pseudo-science that I see is coming from you, as usual. Trying to help you understand some basic science could become someones full time job.

 

[PhysBang]

Mitocondria is the subject and your insult to yourself.. Every one of us have an opinion ,not everybody have to join the band wagon.

But this is not about opinion, it is about science. You can't just make up science, you have to deal with the evidence.

wellwisher seems to have no evidence, just a desire to claim that the world is the way that wellwisher wants it to be.

 

[origin]

How do you prove this claim, and what is the logic other than the mitochondria randomly won a lottery

I do not know what your problem is with something being random. Does the thought of random outcomes upset your desire that everything is planned? You know that the weather is chaotic, right? No matter how much information you have and even if you have an infinitely powerful computer you cannot accurately predict the weather 15 days out.

Instead of clinging to your belief and scouring the internet trying to find support for it, why don't you just accept the evidence?

 

[wellwisher]

But this is not about opinion, it is about science. You can't just make up science, you have to deal with the evidence.

wellwisher seems to have no evidence, just a desire to claim that the world is the way that wellwisher wants it to be.

What is the evidence that mitochondria somehow randomly drifted into a cell and took up residence? The theory is the mitochondria entered illegally and the two them got along so well the illegal alien was made a citizen. All this theory does is rehash the consensus evolutionary schema ; random occurrence followed by selection. No other proof is required other that bowing to the statue. That is not real science but more of a fraternity initiation.

There is principle in chemistry called activity. The activity of water is connected to the hydration power of the water, with the activity of pure water defined as 1.0. As we add things to the water, the water will hydrate these things and thereby lower its activity below 1.0. When water loses all power to hydrate any further, activity =0. This is easy, straight forward and can be measured. This is used in the food industries to preserve food. Chips get stale if too much water enters from the air.

The DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. The DNA is also the most hydrated molecule in the mitochondria. The question is why does a mitochondria still need the maximum hydrated molecule? For one thing, this high level of DNA hydration means the activity of the local water near the DNA will be lowest point inside the mitochondria. It will form an activity gradient from the DNA (low) to the surface (high).

To form a symbiosis, we would need the surface water activity of the original mitochondria to be close to the inside of the cell membrane, so it can wander in and not disturb the cellular activity gradient, from its DNA to its surface. At a sweet point, it can enter under the radar and not create a non equilibrium situation. This may require a certain stage in cell evolution, and not just a random entry at any time.

As the odd pair evolved, together, the mitochondria lost much of its original DNA, with the cell DNA taking over many of its former functions. In terms of water activity, the smaller mitochondrial DNA means the core activity of the mitochondria DNA is going up, due to less hydration by a smaller DNA. This makes the surface of the mitochondria increase its activity due to less core gradient drag.

This is useful to both because it means there is more capacity in the water to hydrate molecules at the surface of the mitochondria; increases diffusion to the surface. This makes the mitochondria a better ally with a higher reaction rate.

If we get rid of the DNA, we lose the internal activity gradient induced by the DNA core. The activity of the surface will get higher, however, the equilibrium between core and surface, will be shifted higher, such that some enzymes may not work properly. We could take out the DNA and see if this true.

 

[origin]

What is the evidence that mitochondria somehow randomly drifted into a cell and took up residence?

Here is some for wiki.
Source
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from bacteria is as follows:[31][32][33]

• New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission.
• If a cell's mitochondria or chloroplasts are removed, the cell does not have the means to create new ones.[34] For example, in some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
• Transport proteins called porins are found in the outer membranes of mitochondria and chloroplasts, are also found in bacterial cell membrane.[35][36][37]
• A membrane lipid cardiolipin is exclusively found in the inner mitochondrial membrane and bacterial cell membrane.[38]
• Both mitochondria and plastids contain single circular DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (both in their size and structure).
• The genomes, including the specific genes, are basically similar between mitochondria and the Rickettsial bacteria.[39]
• Genome comparisons indicate that cyanobacteria contributed to the genetic origin of plastids.[40]
• DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggest that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
• These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70S).
• Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
• Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
• Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of bacteria.
• Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
• Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
• Many of these protists contain "primary" plastids that have not yet been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes.
• Among eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Archaeplastida), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between the two membranes

 

[PhysBang]

What is the evidence that mitochondria somehow randomly drifted into a cell and took up residence?

A) You are making a straw man argument, the claim is not random drift. B) Read the article.

This is a common theme among cranks: they want to be taken seriously but can't find the effort to take any science seriously enough to actually read it.

The theory is the mitochondria entered illegally and the two them got along so well the illegal alien was made a citizen.

There is no country, law, courts, or law enforcement for cells.

To form a symbiosis, we would need the surface water activity of the original mitochondria to be close to the inside of the cell membrane, so it can wander in and not disturb the cellular activity gradient, from its DNA to its surface. At a sweet point, it can enter under the radar and not create a non equilibrium situation. This may require a certain stage in cell evolution, and not just a random entry at any time.

OK, lets see your evidence for this claim.

 

[timojin]

A) You are making a straw man argument, the claim is not random drift. B) Read the article.

This is a common theme among cranks: they want to be taken seriously but can't find the effort to take any science seriously enough to actually read it.


There is no country, law, courts, or law enforcement for cells.


OK, lets see your evidence for this claim.

Can you let an individual create his ideas , If you have a better idea or evidence present it . Intimidating by insulting does not help science but self elevation. As for me , his first 3 paragraphs seams good , and I believe upon his presentation some science can be discussed .

 

[PhysBang]

Can you let an individual create his ideas , If you have a better idea or evidence present it .

The better ideas and evidence have been presented. They are the modern collection that we call evollutionary biology.

We can't simply accept the claims that water is magic because wellwisher tells us that it is so. wellwisher is telling us to, like him, ignore the evidence for modern biology and instead accept his word on the matter.

 

[timojin]

The better ideas and evidence have been presented. They are the modern collection that we call evollutionary biology.

We can't simply accept the claims that water is magic because wellwisher tells us that it is so. wellwisher is telling us to, like him, ignore the evidence for modern biology and instead accept his word on the matter.

Science changes with time as better evidence are presented, and experiment are designed because different hypothesis . So far we don't know exactly on how the merge have taken place ,no one have duplicate the process of merging

 

[exchemist]

Science changes with time as better evidence are presented, and experiment are designed because different hypothesis . So far we don't know exactly on how the merge have taken place ,no one have duplicate the process of merging

But that lack of knowledge is NOT evidence for some magical notion of the properties of water.

 

[PhysBang]

Science changes with time as better evidence are presented, and experiment are designed because different hypothesis . So far we don't know exactly on how the merge have taken place ,no one have duplicate the process of merging

Yes. So let's see the evidence.

 

[timojin]

But that lack of knowledge is NOT evidence for some magical notion of the properties of water.

Getting back to the post , One cell swallowing another cell . why would they be symbiotically compatible on chemical or physical bases Would it be favorable to a living cell to increase its temperature ,since mitochondria is an energy producing organism ?