Why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous” and “like living with a bomb”?Why does the oxygen produced in the photosynthesis come from water and not carbon dioxide?Do plants with non-green leaves have chlorophyll and photosynthesis?Why is there a seeming dichotomy between mobility and photosynthesis?Could cyanobacteria thrive with very high CO2 concentrations and almost no oxygen to start with?

Multi tool use
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits
Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
Test whether all array elements are factors of a number
Problem of parity - Can we draw a closed path made up of 20 line segments...
Mathematical cryptic clues
can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
LaTeX closing $ signs makes cursor jump
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Why, historically, did Gödel think CH was false?
Show that if two triangles built on parallel lines, with equal bases have the same perimeter only if they are congruent.
An academic/student plagiarism
What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?
Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?
"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
Why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous” and “like living with a bomb”?
Why does the oxygen produced in the photosynthesis come from water and not carbon dioxide?Do plants with non-green leaves have chlorophyll and photosynthesis?Why is there a seeming dichotomy between mobility and photosynthesis?Could cyanobacteria thrive with very high CO2 concentrations and almost no oxygen to start with?
$begingroup$
The Phys.org article Scientists discover first organism with chlorophyll genes that doesn't photosynthesize says
"For the first time scientists have found an organism that can produce chlorophyll but does not engage in photosynthesis.
It is referring to the new paper in Nature A widespread coral-infecting apicomplexan with chlorophyll biosynthesis genes (paywalled).
"This is the second most abundant cohabitant of coral on the planet and it hasn't been seen until now," says Patrick Keeling, a University of British Columbia botanist and senior researcher overseeing the study published in Nature. "This organism poses completely new biochemical questions. It looks like a parasite, and it's definitely not photosynthetic. But it still makes chlorophyll."
[...]
Chlorophyll is the green pigment found in plants and algae that allows them to absorb energy from sunlight during photosynthesis.
"Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous because chlorophyll is very good at capturing energy, but without photosynthesis to release the energy slowly it is like living with a bomb in your cells," Keeling says.
Question: Why is it that "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
photosynthesis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Phys.org article Scientists discover first organism with chlorophyll genes that doesn't photosynthesize says
"For the first time scientists have found an organism that can produce chlorophyll but does not engage in photosynthesis.
It is referring to the new paper in Nature A widespread coral-infecting apicomplexan with chlorophyll biosynthesis genes (paywalled).
"This is the second most abundant cohabitant of coral on the planet and it hasn't been seen until now," says Patrick Keeling, a University of British Columbia botanist and senior researcher overseeing the study published in Nature. "This organism poses completely new biochemical questions. It looks like a parasite, and it's definitely not photosynthetic. But it still makes chlorophyll."
[...]
Chlorophyll is the green pigment found in plants and algae that allows them to absorb energy from sunlight during photosynthesis.
"Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous because chlorophyll is very good at capturing energy, but without photosynthesis to release the energy slowly it is like living with a bomb in your cells," Keeling says.
Question: Why is it that "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
photosynthesis
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Phys.org article Scientists discover first organism with chlorophyll genes that doesn't photosynthesize says
"For the first time scientists have found an organism that can produce chlorophyll but does not engage in photosynthesis.
It is referring to the new paper in Nature A widespread coral-infecting apicomplexan with chlorophyll biosynthesis genes (paywalled).
"This is the second most abundant cohabitant of coral on the planet and it hasn't been seen until now," says Patrick Keeling, a University of British Columbia botanist and senior researcher overseeing the study published in Nature. "This organism poses completely new biochemical questions. It looks like a parasite, and it's definitely not photosynthetic. But it still makes chlorophyll."
[...]
Chlorophyll is the green pigment found in plants and algae that allows them to absorb energy from sunlight during photosynthesis.
"Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous because chlorophyll is very good at capturing energy, but without photosynthesis to release the energy slowly it is like living with a bomb in your cells," Keeling says.
Question: Why is it that "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
photosynthesis
$endgroup$
The Phys.org article Scientists discover first organism with chlorophyll genes that doesn't photosynthesize says
"For the first time scientists have found an organism that can produce chlorophyll but does not engage in photosynthesis.
It is referring to the new paper in Nature A widespread coral-infecting apicomplexan with chlorophyll biosynthesis genes (paywalled).
"This is the second most abundant cohabitant of coral on the planet and it hasn't been seen until now," says Patrick Keeling, a University of British Columbia botanist and senior researcher overseeing the study published in Nature. "This organism poses completely new biochemical questions. It looks like a parasite, and it's definitely not photosynthetic. But it still makes chlorophyll."
[...]
Chlorophyll is the green pigment found in plants and algae that allows them to absorb energy from sunlight during photosynthesis.
"Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous because chlorophyll is very good at capturing energy, but without photosynthesis to release the energy slowly it is like living with a bomb in your cells," Keeling says.
Question: Why is it that "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
photosynthesis
photosynthesis
edited 2 days ago
uhoh
asked 2 days ago


uhohuhoh
1,5691339
1,5691339
1
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll absorbs photons (light). The energy in the photon extracts an electron from a molecule of water. Electron transfer creates intermediate superoxide and hydroxyl radicals from the oxygen and hydrogen from the donor water molecule.
In normal photosynthesis, these radicals are quickly used to power the reduction of NADP to NADPH and the synthesis of ATP from ADP. NADPH and ATP in turn power the synthesis of sugars from carbon dioxide and water, via the Calvin cycle.
These radicals are highly reactive. They will attack DNA, proteins, and structural lipids within the cell, and are therefore dangerous. In normal plant cells that get too much sun, free radicals can build up and cause cell damage.
My guess is that the "bomb" is made up of higher concentrations of these radicals within a cell with no apparent machinery to perform the downstream (photosynthetic) chemical reactions needed to consume them safely.
Edit
I skimmed the (sadly, paywalled) paper, and it sounds like my guess was right, that it is indeed these radicals that are the danger from having chlorophyll, with no light-independent (Calvin cycle) mediated reactions to safely consume the energy in them:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of
photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids
must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely
related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally
function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular
integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds
to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing,
photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too
leave open the question of what the cell would do with the highenergy end products.
What's not clear to me is that the genes that help generate chlorophyll are expressed, but the cells are unpigmented. I don't see any explanation where the chlorophyll and associated proteins are localized in the cell — seems like a missing part of the paper, or I missed that part when skimming. Or perhaps the organism has evolved interesting and novel ways to manage the damage caused by these oxygen radicals, or has other mechanisms for consuming them, yet to be identified.
Should motivate further research, especially if these organisms share ancestry with malaria and toxoplasmosis — there might be something interesting to learn that would help with eliminating these diseases. I imagine a biochemical "bomb" could be very handy for destroying parasites; perhaps some drug therapies could target the relevant genes and induce the parasite to destroy itself. Interesting paper.
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
|
show 15 more comments
$begingroup$
Alex Reynolds has explained why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous”, but I think that the original sensational statement by Phys.org is unhelpful as it distracts from the real question. However that’s what you get with so-called ‘free’ journalism.
Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason. If the corals don’t perform photosynthesis, they use the high-energy electrons produced from the light photons for something else. To quote from the paper:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing, photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too leave open the question of what the cell would do with the high- energy end products. Moreover, we detected corallicolids in sun coral (Tubastrea sp.) and black coral (order Antipatharia), both of which are considered to be non-photosynthetic corals, which further suggests that corallicolids deviate from classical modes of light harvesting.
The interesting question is what they use it for. Bombs are for writers that don’t do biochemistry.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "375"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82495%2fwhy-having-chlorophyll-without-photosynthesis-is-actually-very-dangerous-and%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll absorbs photons (light). The energy in the photon extracts an electron from a molecule of water. Electron transfer creates intermediate superoxide and hydroxyl radicals from the oxygen and hydrogen from the donor water molecule.
In normal photosynthesis, these radicals are quickly used to power the reduction of NADP to NADPH and the synthesis of ATP from ADP. NADPH and ATP in turn power the synthesis of sugars from carbon dioxide and water, via the Calvin cycle.
These radicals are highly reactive. They will attack DNA, proteins, and structural lipids within the cell, and are therefore dangerous. In normal plant cells that get too much sun, free radicals can build up and cause cell damage.
My guess is that the "bomb" is made up of higher concentrations of these radicals within a cell with no apparent machinery to perform the downstream (photosynthetic) chemical reactions needed to consume them safely.
Edit
I skimmed the (sadly, paywalled) paper, and it sounds like my guess was right, that it is indeed these radicals that are the danger from having chlorophyll, with no light-independent (Calvin cycle) mediated reactions to safely consume the energy in them:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of
photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids
must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely
related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally
function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular
integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds
to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing,
photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too
leave open the question of what the cell would do with the highenergy end products.
What's not clear to me is that the genes that help generate chlorophyll are expressed, but the cells are unpigmented. I don't see any explanation where the chlorophyll and associated proteins are localized in the cell — seems like a missing part of the paper, or I missed that part when skimming. Or perhaps the organism has evolved interesting and novel ways to manage the damage caused by these oxygen radicals, or has other mechanisms for consuming them, yet to be identified.
Should motivate further research, especially if these organisms share ancestry with malaria and toxoplasmosis — there might be something interesting to learn that would help with eliminating these diseases. I imagine a biochemical "bomb" could be very handy for destroying parasites; perhaps some drug therapies could target the relevant genes and induce the parasite to destroy itself. Interesting paper.
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
|
show 15 more comments
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll absorbs photons (light). The energy in the photon extracts an electron from a molecule of water. Electron transfer creates intermediate superoxide and hydroxyl radicals from the oxygen and hydrogen from the donor water molecule.
In normal photosynthesis, these radicals are quickly used to power the reduction of NADP to NADPH and the synthesis of ATP from ADP. NADPH and ATP in turn power the synthesis of sugars from carbon dioxide and water, via the Calvin cycle.
These radicals are highly reactive. They will attack DNA, proteins, and structural lipids within the cell, and are therefore dangerous. In normal plant cells that get too much sun, free radicals can build up and cause cell damage.
My guess is that the "bomb" is made up of higher concentrations of these radicals within a cell with no apparent machinery to perform the downstream (photosynthetic) chemical reactions needed to consume them safely.
Edit
I skimmed the (sadly, paywalled) paper, and it sounds like my guess was right, that it is indeed these radicals that are the danger from having chlorophyll, with no light-independent (Calvin cycle) mediated reactions to safely consume the energy in them:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of
photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids
must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely
related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally
function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular
integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds
to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing,
photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too
leave open the question of what the cell would do with the highenergy end products.
What's not clear to me is that the genes that help generate chlorophyll are expressed, but the cells are unpigmented. I don't see any explanation where the chlorophyll and associated proteins are localized in the cell — seems like a missing part of the paper, or I missed that part when skimming. Or perhaps the organism has evolved interesting and novel ways to manage the damage caused by these oxygen radicals, or has other mechanisms for consuming them, yet to be identified.
Should motivate further research, especially if these organisms share ancestry with malaria and toxoplasmosis — there might be something interesting to learn that would help with eliminating these diseases. I imagine a biochemical "bomb" could be very handy for destroying parasites; perhaps some drug therapies could target the relevant genes and induce the parasite to destroy itself. Interesting paper.
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
|
show 15 more comments
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll absorbs photons (light). The energy in the photon extracts an electron from a molecule of water. Electron transfer creates intermediate superoxide and hydroxyl radicals from the oxygen and hydrogen from the donor water molecule.
In normal photosynthesis, these radicals are quickly used to power the reduction of NADP to NADPH and the synthesis of ATP from ADP. NADPH and ATP in turn power the synthesis of sugars from carbon dioxide and water, via the Calvin cycle.
These radicals are highly reactive. They will attack DNA, proteins, and structural lipids within the cell, and are therefore dangerous. In normal plant cells that get too much sun, free radicals can build up and cause cell damage.
My guess is that the "bomb" is made up of higher concentrations of these radicals within a cell with no apparent machinery to perform the downstream (photosynthetic) chemical reactions needed to consume them safely.
Edit
I skimmed the (sadly, paywalled) paper, and it sounds like my guess was right, that it is indeed these radicals that are the danger from having chlorophyll, with no light-independent (Calvin cycle) mediated reactions to safely consume the energy in them:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of
photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids
must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely
related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally
function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular
integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds
to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing,
photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too
leave open the question of what the cell would do with the highenergy end products.
What's not clear to me is that the genes that help generate chlorophyll are expressed, but the cells are unpigmented. I don't see any explanation where the chlorophyll and associated proteins are localized in the cell — seems like a missing part of the paper, or I missed that part when skimming. Or perhaps the organism has evolved interesting and novel ways to manage the damage caused by these oxygen radicals, or has other mechanisms for consuming them, yet to be identified.
Should motivate further research, especially if these organisms share ancestry with malaria and toxoplasmosis — there might be something interesting to learn that would help with eliminating these diseases. I imagine a biochemical "bomb" could be very handy for destroying parasites; perhaps some drug therapies could target the relevant genes and induce the parasite to destroy itself. Interesting paper.
$endgroup$
Chlorophyll absorbs photons (light). The energy in the photon extracts an electron from a molecule of water. Electron transfer creates intermediate superoxide and hydroxyl radicals from the oxygen and hydrogen from the donor water molecule.
In normal photosynthesis, these radicals are quickly used to power the reduction of NADP to NADPH and the synthesis of ATP from ADP. NADPH and ATP in turn power the synthesis of sugars from carbon dioxide and water, via the Calvin cycle.
These radicals are highly reactive. They will attack DNA, proteins, and structural lipids within the cell, and are therefore dangerous. In normal plant cells that get too much sun, free radicals can build up and cause cell damage.
My guess is that the "bomb" is made up of higher concentrations of these radicals within a cell with no apparent machinery to perform the downstream (photosynthetic) chemical reactions needed to consume them safely.
Edit
I skimmed the (sadly, paywalled) paper, and it sounds like my guess was right, that it is indeed these radicals that are the danger from having chlorophyll, with no light-independent (Calvin cycle) mediated reactions to safely consume the energy in them:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of
photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids
must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely
related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally
function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular
integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds
to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing,
photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too
leave open the question of what the cell would do with the highenergy end products.
What's not clear to me is that the genes that help generate chlorophyll are expressed, but the cells are unpigmented. I don't see any explanation where the chlorophyll and associated proteins are localized in the cell — seems like a missing part of the paper, or I missed that part when skimming. Or perhaps the organism has evolved interesting and novel ways to manage the damage caused by these oxygen radicals, or has other mechanisms for consuming them, yet to be identified.
Should motivate further research, especially if these organisms share ancestry with malaria and toxoplasmosis — there might be something interesting to learn that would help with eliminating these diseases. I imagine a biochemical "bomb" could be very handy for destroying parasites; perhaps some drug therapies could target the relevant genes and induce the parasite to destroy itself. Interesting paper.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Alex ReynoldsAlex Reynolds
53239
53239
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
|
show 15 more comments
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
17
17
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@elzell I would say that's usual dehydration/UV induced damage. Usually chlorophyll synthesis is regulated and there are anti-oxidants to prevent oxidative damage. Note that excessive sunlight also burns animals.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Well now this just leaves me wondering if these organisms are doing anything with this chlorophyll. Are they just in some really weird evolutionary niche where they manage to produce chlorophyll they don't need, without it being a large enough burden to stop the species from surviving?
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@mbrig The algae Dunaliella "accumulates massive amounts of beta- carotene when cultivated under high light intensity" and the absorbtion of light is thought to be protective against the deleterious effects of sunlight (ref) and of course D. may cause lakes to turn pink
$endgroup$
– user1136
2 days ago
|
show 15 more comments
$begingroup$
Alex Reynolds has explained why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous”, but I think that the original sensational statement by Phys.org is unhelpful as it distracts from the real question. However that’s what you get with so-called ‘free’ journalism.
Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason. If the corals don’t perform photosynthesis, they use the high-energy electrons produced from the light photons for something else. To quote from the paper:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing, photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too leave open the question of what the cell would do with the high- energy end products. Moreover, we detected corallicolids in sun coral (Tubastrea sp.) and black coral (order Antipatharia), both of which are considered to be non-photosynthetic corals, which further suggests that corallicolids deviate from classical modes of light harvesting.
The interesting question is what they use it for. Bombs are for writers that don’t do biochemistry.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Alex Reynolds has explained why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous”, but I think that the original sensational statement by Phys.org is unhelpful as it distracts from the real question. However that’s what you get with so-called ‘free’ journalism.
Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason. If the corals don’t perform photosynthesis, they use the high-energy electrons produced from the light photons for something else. To quote from the paper:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing, photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too leave open the question of what the cell would do with the high- energy end products. Moreover, we detected corallicolids in sun coral (Tubastrea sp.) and black coral (order Antipatharia), both of which are considered to be non-photosynthetic corals, which further suggests that corallicolids deviate from classical modes of light harvesting.
The interesting question is what they use it for. Bombs are for writers that don’t do biochemistry.
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Alex Reynolds has explained why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous”, but I think that the original sensational statement by Phys.org is unhelpful as it distracts from the real question. However that’s what you get with so-called ‘free’ journalism.
Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason. If the corals don’t perform photosynthesis, they use the high-energy electrons produced from the light photons for something else. To quote from the paper:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing, photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too leave open the question of what the cell would do with the high- energy end products. Moreover, we detected corallicolids in sun coral (Tubastrea sp.) and black coral (order Antipatharia), both of which are considered to be non-photosynthetic corals, which further suggests that corallicolids deviate from classical modes of light harvesting.
The interesting question is what they use it for. Bombs are for writers that don’t do biochemistry.
$endgroup$
Alex Reynolds has explained why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous”, but I think that the original sensational statement by Phys.org is unhelpful as it distracts from the real question. However that’s what you get with so-called ‘free’ journalism.
Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason. If the corals don’t perform photosynthesis, they use the high-energy electrons produced from the light photons for something else. To quote from the paper:
Chlorophyll itself has no natural biological function outside of photosynthesis, so if photosystems are indeed absent, corallicolids must have evolved a novel use for either chlorophyll or its closely related precursors or derivatives. However, these molecules generally function in light harvesting, which would be destructive to cellular integrity without the coupling of the resulting high-energy compounds to photosynthesis. Other possibilities are functions in light sensing, photo-quenching or the regulation of haem synthesis, but these too leave open the question of what the cell would do with the high- energy end products. Moreover, we detected corallicolids in sun coral (Tubastrea sp.) and black coral (order Antipatharia), both of which are considered to be non-photosynthetic corals, which further suggests that corallicolids deviate from classical modes of light harvesting.
The interesting question is what they use it for. Bombs are for writers that don’t do biochemistry.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago


DavidDavid
12.8k42356
12.8k42356
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
12
12
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You probably didn't notice but the article is directly quoting one of the authors. The reference to "bomb" is in quotation marks, with the author's name following immediately. Your bone to pick is with the author himself, not with Phys.org or "free journalism" (which it isn't, Phys.org has advertisements). I also felt it was strange that an author of the paper would use this wording, You may want to fix this glaring error in the beginning of your otherwise helpful answer. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
3
3
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
$begingroup$
(-1) because first and final sentences are inaccurate and should be corrected. You're claiming that the author of the Nature paper doesn't do biochemistry. Yikes!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 days ago
8
8
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
$begingroup$
"Obviously organisms don’t synthesize complex molecules without a reason." I don't see this as obvious; vestigial structures are a counterexample. The reason could simply be random chance that hasn't been selected against.
$endgroup$
– Bob
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
$begingroup$
@utoh On your 'yikes!' comment (agreed), to quote Sidney Brenner "... two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and [that] only one of these should be allowed to come back. Of course, biochemistry never really went away but continued to flourish in the thousands of unread pages of biochemical journals" Biochemistry Strikes Back.
$endgroup$
– user1136
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
$begingroup$
@user1136 that's an interesting editorial. The paragraph immediately before the one to which you refer also has significance here with respect to this organism producing but not using chlorophyl; "...or indeed the very presence, of a protein may be very significant or totally irrelevant depending on whether it is following a ‘don’t care’ condition."
$endgroup$
– uhoh
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Biology Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82495%2fwhy-having-chlorophyll-without-photosynthesis-is-actually-very-dangerous-and%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
s,goKVM8Rl3JSbemiV,s9l3x6zRGaU,QaSQHVYDY,z8vJa
1
$begingroup$
While I lack detailed knowledge of this organism's internal structure, it's plausible that since it is still carrying out photocapture and acid pump that the acid pump directly powers ATP synthesis like it would normally do in mitochondria. It would take a link between the plastids and the mitochondira to do, but that's not ridiciulously implausible.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It is important to note, at least from my understanding of the article, that the organism doesn't actually produce chlorophyll; it merely has the genes to do so, but they seem to be inactive.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
yesterday