Timeline for Are cells guaranteed to get at least one mitochondrion when they divide?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2019 at 16:14 | comment | added | Underminer | @NiklasMertsch Exactly. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that in a certain class of cells, there are enough mitochondria that a random process will sufficiently guarantee distribution to the daughter cells; no active process necessary. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 15:51 | history | edited | Underminer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2019 at 15:40 | history | edited | Underminer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 367 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2019 at 8:47 | comment | added | Niklas Mertsch | @Mike While I agree that some citation would increase the quality of this answer, I really like the perspective of it. Other answers regard the high evolutionary pressure on cells without mitochondria and refer to mechanisms to actively prevent that case by distributing mitochondria to the daughter cells. This one brings perspective to the importance of these mechanisms: It certainly is beneficial to actively control the mitochondria distribution, but is this a necessity or just a "nice to have" feature? The actual numbers certainly are not very representative, but I like the idea of it. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 8:06 | comment | added | Mike Scott | I think both of your assumptions are highly suspect, unless you can cite research to back them up. | |
| May 20, 2019 at 20:08 | history | answered | Underminer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |