Why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous” and “like living with a bomb”? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?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?

Calculation of line of sight system gain

Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple, reliable and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?

How to achieve cat-like agility?

New Order #6: Easter Egg

How can I list files in reverse time order by a command and pass them as arguments to another command?

Plotting a Maclaurin series

3D Masyu - A Die

Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?

Do i imagine the linear (straight line) homotopy in a correct way?

Problem with display of presentation

How to resize main filesystem

How do I say "this must not happen"?

Where did Ptolemy compare the Earth to the distance of fixed stars?

How to name indistinguishable henchmen in a screenplay?

Where and when has Thucydides been studied?

Why are two-digit numbers in Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" (1726) written in "German style"?

Meaning of 境 in その日を境に

How do you write "wild blueberries flavored"?

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

"Destructive power" carried by a B-52?

Short story about astronauts fertilizing soil with their own bodies

What did Turing mean when saying that "machines cannot give rise to surprises" is due to a fallacy?

Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?

Does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?



Why “Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous” and “like living with a bomb”?



Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?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?










34












$begingroup$


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"?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:33






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Apr 5 at 9:13















34












$begingroup$


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"?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:33






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Apr 5 at 9:13













34












34








34


3



$begingroup$


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"?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 4 at 23:09







uhoh

















asked Apr 4 at 6:33









uhohuhoh

1,6831339




1,6831339







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:33






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Apr 5 at 9:13












  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:33






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Apr 5 at 9:13







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
Apr 4 at 16:33




$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 16:33




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
Apr 4 at 21:10




$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 21:10




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
Apr 5 at 9:13




$begingroup$
They're referring to the fact that a bomb can release a lot of energy under the right circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Apr 5 at 9:13










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















42












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    It would be great if you could provide some references.
    $endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 4 at 11:07






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:34






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:55







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:05






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:15



















4












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    Apr 4 at 23:47






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 0:10






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 4:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh 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
    Apr 5 at 10:22







  • 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
    Apr 5 at 10:30











Your Answer








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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









42












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    It would be great if you could provide some references.
    $endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 4 at 11:07






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:34






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:55







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:05






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:15
















42












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    It would be great if you could provide some references.
    $endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 4 at 11:07






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:34






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:55







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:05






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:15














42












42








42





$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 5 at 20:16

























answered Apr 4 at 7:50









Alex ReynoldsAlex Reynolds

73179




73179







  • 17




    $begingroup$
    It would be great if you could provide some references.
    $endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 4 at 11:07






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:34






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:55







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:05






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:15













  • 17




    $begingroup$
    It would be great if you could provide some references.
    $endgroup$
    – WYSIWYG
    Apr 4 at 11:07






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:34






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 14:55







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 16:05






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 21:15








17




17




$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
Apr 4 at 11:07




$begingroup$
It would be great if you could provide some references.
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
Apr 4 at 11:07




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
Apr 4 at 14:34




$begingroup$
Chlorophyll (and more commonly porphyrins) are in fact used to kill cells by light exposure in photodynamic therapy (Song et al., 2014)
$endgroup$
– WYSIWYG
Apr 4 at 14:34




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
Apr 4 at 14:55





$begingroup$
@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
Apr 4 at 14:55





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
Apr 4 at 16:05




$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 16:05




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
Apr 4 at 21:15





$begingroup$
@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
Apr 4 at 21:15












4












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    Apr 4 at 23:47






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 0:10






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 4:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh 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
    Apr 5 at 10:22







  • 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
    Apr 5 at 10:30















4












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    Apr 4 at 23:47






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 0:10






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 4:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh 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
    Apr 5 at 10:22







  • 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
    Apr 5 at 10:30













4












4








4





$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 4 at 21:03

























answered Apr 4 at 20:09









DavidDavid

13.1k42356




13.1k42356







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 23:47






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 0:10






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 4:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh 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
    Apr 5 at 10:22







  • 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
    Apr 5 at 10:30












  • 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
    Apr 4 at 23:47






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 0:10






  • 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
    Apr 5 at 4:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @uhoh 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
    Apr 5 at 10:22







  • 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
    Apr 5 at 10:30







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
Apr 4 at 23:47




$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 23:47




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
Apr 5 at 0:10




$begingroup$
(-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
Apr 5 at 0:10




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
Apr 5 at 4:30





$begingroup$
"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
Apr 5 at 4:30





1




1




$begingroup$
@uhoh 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
Apr 5 at 10:22





$begingroup$
@uhoh 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
Apr 5 at 10:22





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
Apr 5 at 10:30




$begingroup$
@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
Apr 5 at 10:30

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?