Talk:Protocell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected edit request on 7 March 2014[edit]

This page points to a bookmark on Abiogenesis that no longer exists.

I do not believe that "No reason for this page to be edited without discussion" is appropriate. A page should need a reason to be protected not a reason NOT to be protected. Especially when it was almost 6 years ago. Please edit to point to: Abiogensis#Complex_biological_molecules_and_protocells

And unprotect. Aqmola (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I fixed the link. Regarding the prot level: please contact the protecting admin, who according to the logs was NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), or file a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected per your request. The protection was due to pagemove vandalism back in 2008. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new "protocell" article and let it go live today. I changed the redirect back to "protocell". Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<discussion> I propose that Protobiont be merged into Protocell. The reason is that it is the same concept: the hypothetical precursor of living cells, composed by aggregates of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane. The two names are even used by biologists as synonyms: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Sunrise (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is obvious (e.g., the mistaken creation of a second page for the same subject under a slightly different name) the merger is done so I will perform the redirect without further discussion. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section on endosymbiotic theory does not seem relevant here[edit]

How is the section on "endosymbiotic theory" relevant to this article? The page is about protocells — hypothetical precursors of the first prokaryotes. The endosymbiotic theory is about the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes — a different, much later stage in the history of life on earth. Is the section here due to confusion between the terms "protocell" and "proteobacteria"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was included as the transition between liposome and prokaryote? BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it was really about transition between liposome and prokaryote, then I'd agree it would be relevant. But it is explicitly about the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. Here is the passage in question.:
Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
==Endosymbiotic theory==
−
Main article: Endosymbiotic theory
−
Molecular and biochemical evidence suggest that the mitochondrion developed from proteobacteria
−
The endosymbiotic theory states that several key organelles of eukaryotes originated as symbioses between separate single-celled organisms. According to this theory, mitochondria,[1][2] chloroplasts,[3] and possibly other organelles, represent formerly free-living bacteria that were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont. As evidence, the mitochondrion has its own independent mitochondrial DNA genome. Further, its DNA shows substantial similarity to bacterial genomes,[4] particularly, molecular and biochemical evidence suggest that the mitochondrion developed from proteobacteria.[5][6]
−
−
The mitochondrion (plural mitochondria) is a membrane-bound organelle found in most eukaryotic cells (the cells that make up plants, animals, fungi, and many other forms of life).[7] A mitochondrion produces adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and it is closely related to the adenosine nucleotide, a monomer of RNA. ATP is often called the "molecular unit of currency" of intracellular energy transfer.[8] ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism. ATP is one of the end products of photophosphorylation, cellular respiration, and fermentation and used by enzymes and structural proteins in many cellular processes, including biosynthetic reactions, motility, and cell division.[9]

You are right. Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wallin, IE (1923). "The Mitochondria Problem". The American Naturalist. 57 (650): 255–61. doi:10.1086/279919.
  2. ^ Wallin, I.E. (1927). Symbionticism and the origin of species. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company. p. 171.
  3. ^ Schimper, AFW (1883). "Über die Entwicklung der Chlorophyllkörner und Farbkörper". Bot. Zeitung (in German). 41: 105–14, 121–31, 137–46, 153–62. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help)
  4. ^ Andersson, SG; Karlberg, O; Canbäck, B; Kurland, CG (January 2003). "On the origin of mitochondria: a genomics perspective". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 358 (1429): 165–77, discussion 177–9. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1193. PMC 1693097. PMID 12594925.
  5. ^ "Mitochondria Share an Ancestor With SAR11, a Globally Significant Marine Microbe". ScienceDaily. 25 July 2011.
  6. ^ Thrash, J. Cameron; et al. (2011). "Phylogenomic evidence for a common ancestor of mitochondria and the SAR11 clade". Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/srep00013. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  7. ^ Henze, K; Martin, William (2003). "Evolutionary biology: essence of mitochondria". Nature. 426 (6963): 127–8. doi:10.1038/426127a. PMID 14614484.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Knowles 1980 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference pph.2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

A central question in evolution[edit]

"A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution".

Isn't it a more central question in abiogenesis than in evolution? It is not a question which needs to be answered for evolution to be practical, like establishing phylogenetic trees, predicting where to look to discover a transitional fossil, etc. For biological evolution and studying life diversity, aspects such as genetic drift, natural selection, alleles, speciation, etc. appear to be more central than understanding how protocells first arose. I would propose the following sentence instead, which is simpler and less likely to be misunderstood:

"A central question in abiogenesis is how simple protocells first arose".

Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does point to abiogenesis at "origin of life", and it is very possible that there were evolving generations of protocells (just like evolution was also a factor in RNA world hypothesis, etc). PaleoNeonate (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update source/claim on achievement of a functional protocell[edit]

Casual reader here-- have noticed on the Planet Simulator page that the associated researchers have claimed to produce protocells in preliminary tests. Does this warrant an update of the sentence "Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach."?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.75.2.18 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/4516282/mcmaster-researchers-planet-simulator/

A self-replicating protocell was recently produced. See https://newatlas.com/biology/self-replicating-protocells-life-missing-link/ and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25530-6 . The Wikipedia article thus needs to be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.8.246 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference link[edit]

reference link 5 seems to be broken. Anyone know how to find a live/active version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.112.20 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ASTBIO 502 Astrobiology Special Topics -Origin Of Life[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylan Vecchione (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pmonreal.

— Assignment last updated by Pmonreal (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protocell&oldid=1207436657"