energy and structure

[Nicholas]

How do you interpret/explain, "energy and structure are interdependent"?

for me, super simplified, i see it as meaning that all systems of the body are really one system by fact of the cell being the energy house. you can't separate function or dysfunction anywhere in the body from cellular function and dysfunction. the implication with this understanding is that the new treatment becomes the energy mechanics of the cell.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think because energy establishes structure, and structure determines the path that the energy takes. As you can see, neither comes first.

 

[Nicholas]

https://raypeatforum.com/forums/posts/97314/ I think because energy establishes structure, and structure determines the path that the energy takes. As you can see, neither comes first.

beautiful! i hadn't really thought that out before, but it is completely in line with the way i understand the body. "neither comes first"
"structure" has implications even into the physical world around us...
sometimes a change in architecture is needed...

 

[Such_Saturation]

Indeed, we have such a fine control over structure and we still neglect it. A great deal better energy flow can be achieved at little energetic cost.

 

[XPlus]

I think of it like electrical wiring or electronics.
Without energy they're just lifeless dull material.

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[cantstoppeating]

Think of a car that only worked whenever it was driven. The more you drive it (within reason) the more it sustains itself, repairs itself and upgrades itself. The less you drive it, the more damage it accumulates, the more it rusts and the more it begins to degrade. Without use, the car ceases to exist.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Architecture is everything, without it you'll get cancer, malfunctioning, inflammation, etc. (this is also why I couldn't agree with your view that dysfunction is a sign of being functional). Only think about how proteins fold; without the proper folding you don't have the right function. Proteins fold into their lowest free energy state possible, however energy cannot be created nor be destroyed, so the energy has become 'structural energy' - instructed by its environment. This is also why that paper Haidut recently brought up on aging and cellular stress inducing changes in redox potential in the endoplasmic reticulum and cytosol is so interesting. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26228940)

Also have a look at his one: Quantum Criticality in life's proteins (Update)

 

[Nicholas]

https://raypeatforum.com/forums/posts/97389/ Architecture is everything, without it you'll get cancer, malfunctioning, inflammation, etc. (this is also why I couldn't agree with your view that dysfunction is a sign of being functional).

the quote that you are misquoting is: "Dysfunction proves how functional the body is."

and we have always agreed on the environmental impact on the body (including architecture).

 

[Suikerbuik]

No argue Nicholas just giving my 2ct here about the interdependency of structure and energy. I also didn't mean to quote you; in all fairness I should have maybe, but to me there is no difference in meaning.

 

[Whataboutbob]

Life involves the interplay between structure and energy. For the eukaryotic cell, this duality was cemented ∼2 billion years ago by the symbiosis of what appears to have been a glycolytic motile cell, which gave rise to the nucleus–cytosol, and an oxidative α-proteobacterium, which evolved into the mitochondrion (Margulis 1981; Lang et al. 1997; Gray et al. 1999). Initially, each organism was free living and contained all of the genes for an independent life form. However, over the subsequent 1.2 billion years, the single-cell descendants of the initial symbiosis experimented with many alternative arrangements of biochemical interdependence and genomic reorganization. Ultimately, however, an arrangement was achieved in which the mitochondrion became specialized in energy production and the nucleus–cytosol became specialized in structure. This final design provided the impetus for the development of multicellularity and the evolution of higher plants and animals, including humans (Wallace 2007).

The restructuring of the proto-mitochondrial genome included the transfer of virtually all of the genes of the mitochondrial genome, ∼1500, into the chromosomal nDNA. Yet the mtDNA persisted and today still retains 13 polypeptide-encoding genes plus a small and large rRNA gene and 22 tRNA genes. All of the mtDNA-encoded polypeptides are core subunits of the enzyme complexes of the mitochondrial energy-generating apparatus, oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). In OXPHOS, reducing equivalents (electrons) derived from the calories of our diet are transferred down a series of redox enzyme complexes located within the mitochondrial inner membrane, collectively known as the electron transport chain. The electrons enter at either complex I or II and are transferred through coenzyme Q to complex III, then to cytochrome c, on to complex IV, and finally to oxygen to generate H2O. The energy that is released as the electrons traverse complexes I, III, and IV is used to pump protons out of the mitochondrial matrix across the inner membrane, resulting in an electrochemical gradient, the biological equivalent of a capacitor. This capacitance is used as a source of potential energy to drive a variety of activities. For example, the protons can flow back across the inner membrane into the matrix through a proton channel in complex V, the ATP synthase. In the process, potential energy is converted into the high-energy γ-phosphate bond of ATP, which can be used to drive chemical work. If mitochondrial OXPHOS is efficient in converting caloric energy to ATP, it is said to be tightly coupled, and these mitochondria will generate the maximum ATP and thus work for the minimum calories burned. However, if the mitochondria are less efficient at generating ATP, partially uncoupled, then more calories must be burned to generate the same amount of ATP. The energetic difference is dissipated as heat. Thus, in endotherms such as humans, changes in the mitochondrial coupling efficiency determine the relative allocation of calories between ATP for work and heat to maintain the body temperature (Wallace 2007).