chloroplast injection?

[Proton Head]

Actually to all my knowledge there's no problem with using the CO2 produced by respiration in photosynthesis.

However the amount is way too small to be the sole source for efficient photosynthesis, taking into account the fact that CO2 tends to diffuse out of the cells further diminishing the supply.

 

All in all I'm not sure whether or not high levels of CO2 would be dangerous for animal cells not accustomed to it. I believe most, or at least some of the CO2 in solution reacts to form HCO3-. I don't know if the cells could stand these rises in acidity unless some sort of balancing measures were introduced.

[premjan]

In what form does the blood transport CO2 (and Oxygen for that matter)? Are both carried by attachment to the Hemoglobin molecule? I believe CO can decompose Hemoglobin (but not some other oxygen-carrying molecules found in nature).

[rakuenso]

Plants don't move' date=' plants don't think, and even though they do neither of these actions (which use tremendous amounts of energy), their surface area to volume is immensely larger than that of animals.

[/quote']

 

 

Plants don't move because they have cell walls, not because they have choloroplasts. They can't move because they dont have neurons that us humans do. Their Xylem and Phloem arent designed that way.

[chadn]

Plants don't move because they have cell walls, not because they have choloroplasts. They can't move because they dont have neurons that us humans do. Their Xylem and Phloem arent designed that way.

 

Plants dont move?

 

Yes they do, many plants are capable of reacting to stimuli within seconds. Leaves regularly move in relation to the sun. Probably the most dramatic examples of plant movements is the venus fly trap. Cell walls may be more rigid than cell membranes, but dont take that to mean that its immobile. The cell wall is actually quite elastic.

[gene]

In what form does the blood transport CO2 (and Oxygen for that matter)? Are both carried by attachment to the Hemoglobin molecule? I believe CO can decompose Hemoglobin (but not some other oxygen-carrying molecules found in nature).

 

i read some where, the carbon dioxide is transported in the plasma as bicarbonate ions. But, i am confused now because carbon dioxide can be transported with haemoglobin too. not too sure though.

 

Carbon dioxide decompose haemoglobin? I thought it forms a stable compound? Thus, making the redblood cell useless in transporting either CO2 or O2 ?

 

Sub-point:

So, that's the case, how is this stable compound removed from the body? Does it still goes to the spleen?

[chadn]

i read some where, the carbon dioxide is transported in the plasma as bicarbonate ions. But, i am confused now because carbon dioxide can be transported with haemoglobin too. not too sure though.

 

It does both, and theres also a 3rd method, cant remember it though.

[premjan]

carbon monoxide (CO) decomposes hemoglobin, not carbon.

[gene]

carbon monoxide (CO) decomposes hemoglobin, not carbon.

 

Oops. i missed out the dioxide. care to explain this pheonomeon?

[premjan]

no idea why Carbon Monoxide (not Carbon Dioxide) decomposes hemoglobin, probably it bonds with it too strongly (since it has unsaturated covalency). you know that CO is poisonous (e.g. in car exhaust).

[gene]

Yes. It is poisonous and it forms a stable compound. I just thought that CO just reduces inefficiency of oxygen transport and that it "WOULD" (my guess) eventually be destroyed by the spleen, but i didn't know that it decomposes the haemoglobin.

[premjan]

that may be a mistake I picked up at another forum. when I look it up it in wikipedia appears that CO binds stably to hemoglobin and does not decompose it.

[Proton Head]

Plants don't move because they have cell walls, not because they have choloroplasts. They can't move because they dont have neurons that us humans do. Their Xylem and Phloem arent designed that way.

 

Yeah, I wasn't talking about why plants don't move, I said that even though plants don't move, they are still far better suited for photosynthesis than animals given their greater surface area per unit volume.

That means that it wouldn't be possible for an animal to satisfy its energy need through photosynthesis alone.

 

 

Plants dont move?

 

Yes they do' date=' many plants are capable of reacting to stimuli within seconds. Leaves regularly move in relation to the sun. Probably the most dramatic examples of plant movements is the venus fly trap. Cell walls may be more rigid than cell membranes, but dont take that to mean that its immobile. The cell wall is actually quite elastic.[/quote']

 

Yeah whatever, I believe you know what was the point here. Even though there are a number of plants capable of active movement, in general the energy used to power movement in plants is meaningless compared to animals.

 

 

Hemoglobin binds oxygen as well as NO, CO2 and CO.

Only 7% of the CO2 in the animal blood is transported in solution in blood plasma. 23% of CO2 binds to hemoglobin and 70% is transported in the blood as bicarbonate ions. So most of the carbon dioxide diffuses into the red blood cells where a deal binds to hemoglobin. The majority first reacts with water assisted by an enzyme, to form carbonic acid, which the dissociates into a hydrogen ion and a bicarbonate ion.

 

Carbon dioxide would be a dangerous substance for humans, but it happens to be that hemoglobin has a greater affinity for oxygen so there is no problem.

CO on the other hand can effectively compete with oxygen molecules in the binding event, so rising CO concentrations quickly lower the amount of oxygen carried by hemoglobin and the result is loss of consciousness or suffocation.

[Proton Head]

The human system is built to try to expose of CO2, so transport of CO2 from anywhere except through skin would probably mess a whole lot of different systems (breathing control for example, breathing is mostly controlled by CO2 levels in blood).

Though if the CO2 was bound to a protein in CO2 form I'd guess that would be okay.

 

So instead of stomata a better/easier way of introducing CO2 to photosynthesizing cells in animals would be to add a protein in the blood which efficiently binds CO2.

[rakuenso]

Plants dont move?

 

Yes they do' date=' many plants are capable of reacting to stimuli within seconds. Leaves regularly move in relation to the sun. Probably the most dramatic examples of plant movements is the venus fly trap. Cell walls may be more rigid than cell membranes, but dont take that to mean that its immobile. The cell wall is actually quite elastic.[/quote']

 

By don't move i meant it in a general term as that they dont move nearly as quickly as animals

 

Also, are there absolutely no photosynthetic motile (no plants) multi-cellular organism?

[gene]

By don't move i meant it in a general term as that they dont move nearly as quickly as animals

 

Also' date=' are there absolutely no photosynthetic motile (no plants) multi-cellular organism?[/quote']

 

No there is. maybe not multi-cellular. but uni-cellular. can't remember off-hand.

 

i think it is called autotrophic something???

[Proton Head]

There exist a number of unicellular species of protists which can form chloroplasts (or like structures) if there is light available, and lose them once light is no longer available.

[rakuenso]

autotrophs are producers, and generally are almost all bacteria (hence unicellular as well)

[rakuenso]

autotrophs are producers, and generally are almost all bacteria (hence unicellular as well)

[gene]

but, i can't remember. there are a specific name for bacteria that has photosynthsising abilities.

[gene]

but, i can't remember. there are a specific name for bacteria that has photosynthsising abilities.

[chadn]

but, i can't remember. there are a specific name for bacteria that has photosynthsising abilities.

 

Photoautotroph.

 

More specific names of photosynthetic bacteria include cyanobacteria.

[chadn]

but, i can't remember. there are a specific name for bacteria that has photosynthsising abilities.

 

Photoautotroph.

 

More specific names of photosynthetic bacteria include cyanobacteria.

[rakuenso]

no multicellular ones?

[rakuenso]

no multicellular ones?

[thebrianbeale]

There is probably no one left on this topic, but I could not resist correcting some people. Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin more strongly than oxygen, it does not break it down. Chloroplast is an organelle, not a tissue, and thus there would be no tissue rejection. Plants cannot move in the way that animals can because they don't have muscles or brains; they don't have the energy to support them. Mitochondria are used for the respiration of glucose, other sugars, fats, starch, and protein. Mitochondria are an essential part of nearly all cells, this is why there are no cells with chloroplast and not a mitochondrion. Mitochondria break down things that the chloroplasts create in order to use the energy.

 

If you were to integrate chloroplasts, you wouldn't just inject them. Chloroplasts have been shown to form symbiosis with cells in the digestive systems of some sea slugs from the algae that they eat, but the kleptoplasts only have a life span of about 10 months. This would mean that hypothetical therapies would need to be administered regularly. A better approach would be to insert the DNA coding for the chloroplast and other proteins necessary for photosynthesis into the animals DNA. This would cause the animal cells to produce the chloroplasts themselves, and form automatic and permanent symbiosis. The only problem I think is the length of the relevant DNA strand and the problems normally associated with integrating new DNA into complex cells.