Can a cell live without Mitochondria
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/12/477691018/look-ma-no-mitochondria
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/12/477691018/look-ma-no-mitochondria
Cell and no mitochondria
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
Is that all that you can offer to the finding of the Czech scientist.
YES the believe is that all cells have mitochondrion and here is some research were they found cell without mitochondrion
Well you're wrong, not all cells contain mitochondria - chiefly prokaryotic cells. The belief is that complex cells (eukaryotic cells) must contain mitochondrion, but it's sort of a common belief that other organelles can do the job just as efficiently, the only thing this study proves is that Giardia use a different mechanism than other eukaryots. An interesting finding, but it just confirms earlier suspicions.
Would you rather not have such confirmation ? Do you have other information of such cells ? please contribute then.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
timojin, the point is that this is a discussion forum first, not a news site first.
It is much more valuable if, when posting a link like this, you provide a summary of the paper (perhaps the Abstract) and your own thoughts about the findings, including their significance.
The implication of the almost naked OP and your subsequent reaction carries a strong hint that this somehow "proves Science" wrong. If that is not your intent, then be aware that is how you are in danger of coming across. If that is your intent, well .............
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Here's the journal article (which I haven't yet read apart from the introduction and a quick look at the conclusions).
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30263-9
Procaryotic cells certainly survive without mitochondria.
But this news story is about a eucaryotic cell without mitochondria. That really does seem to be interesting news.
It seems that all eucaryotic cells (at least free-living microbial ones) known to this point possess mitochondria. Earlier it was believed that some didn't, but further investigation showed that they still had cell inclusions that may once have been mitochondria along with (I'm assuming nuclear) genes and proteins associated with mitochondria. Now here's one that apparently doesn't possess a mitochondrion, and apparently also lacks the genes and proteins associated with mitochondria, suggesting that mitochondria were never there earlier in its evolutionary history but subsequently lost.
I'm interested in the possibility that this may be some kind of living fossil, a descendant of cells that had already developed some of the features of eucaryotic cells such as cell nuclei, but before they had entered into symbiotic relationships with the bacterial ancestors of mitochondria.
I believe science is right and beautiful . Many people in science pretend their hypothesis is the gospel and if you don't agree with their projection so you are training to prove science is wrong . Science never can be wrong , science is part of us and we are part of natural science .
I was looking for a response like YAZATA which shears its information . not like others like So, or what is your point ete.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Science is a method. Consequently I do not see in what way you can claim it is part of us. Nor do I understand what you mean by natural science.
I think you misunderstand how science is conducted. Many scientists doubtless have a strong conviction their hypotheses are valid and superior to other current hypotheses. Naturally they will promote these with vigour. I see few examples where they "pretend their hypothesis is the gospel". Do you have a genuine example.