Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Wikipedia states that a cell is

the basic structural, functional and biological unit of all known living organisms. Cells are the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently.

It then goes on to state that

All cells (except red blood cells which lack a cell nucleus and most organelles to accommodate maximum space for hemoglobin) possess DNA.

Then why are red blood cells still considered cells, while they can't replicate? Is the definition on Wikipedia just a bad definition? Or are red blood cells wrongly considered cells, but remain so for historical reasons? Or are they considered cells for some other reason, such as this answer which states that red blood cells do contain a nucleus at some point?

share|improve this question
    
that's why they are referred to as corpuscles –  WYSIWYG May 10 at 7:07
    
Many fully differentiated cells can't replicate: neurons, for example. –  Alan Boyd May 10 at 12:10
    
Animals such as birds and amphibians have nucleated red blood cells... –  PlaysDice May 10 at 12:33
    
The most prominent other non-nucleated corupscules are platelets. If you consider why they aren't called "cells", you'd arrive at the conclusion that it's something to do with one RBC originating from one precursor by eliminating its nucleus, rather than one precursor producing lots of non-nucleated membrane bubbles (i.e. megakaryocytes). Then again, jargon calls platelets thrombo-"cytes" ;) –  Armatus May 11 at 13:13
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

A very good question, and it is most likely because of the last option. It had a nucleus for part of its life. After the RBC jettisons its nucleus, it still remains very metabolically active for approximately 3 months. It maintains its cell membrane integrity, it metabolizes glucose, it interacts constantly with its environment, numerous cellular functions and structure remain intact... It is extremely specialized for a primary purpose, and no longer requires the nucleus to provide more proteins. It has limited capacity to heal from injury, so it has a limited life span.

Speculation: I wonder if it might lose the nucleus early on so that when it is destroyed in the spleen at the end of its life as RBCs are, the spleen macrophages are not overwhelmed with additional processing of nucleic acids? Macrophage type cells are already working hard in there to clear infectious agents and some immune cells from the blood.

share|improve this answer
2  
I'd say it's much more likely eliminated simply to free up the space. The nucleus is a massive organelle and takes away lots of space the cell could fill up with haemoglobin. –  Armatus May 11 at 13:09
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.