This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxidative phosphorylation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Oxidative phosphorylation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Things to consider adding to this article:
1) Diagram or illustration of transmembrane and free electron carrier molecules (Complexes I, II, III, IV, and V).
a) Coenzyme Q (Ubiquinone) b) cytochromes; heme prosthetics groups c) Iron-Sulfur proteins (including Rieske iron-sulfur proteins)
2) Discuss the proton gradient in terms of chemiosmotic theory.
a) Charge Seperation b) pH differences between the intermembrane spaces and the matrix.
3) Breif review of redox reactions and reduction potential (or link to article discussing redox reactions).
4) Discussion on the importance of respiration to the introduction of oxygen as a final electron acceptor.
5) Discuss the Q Cycle
6) Census of electrons versus protons. (ie. two electrons release versus four protons released)
7) Discussion on the rotational catalysis mechanism of ATP synthase.
a) Currently the article makes it sound as though protons can flow in either direction across the ATP synthase complex. b) Discuss various subunits to protein. c) Discuss the Binding-Change model.
-- Mike Filbin 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-- CoeurDeLion
The intro bio text I am looking at reports 30 ATP. I don't have a reason to doubt it. Citric acid cycle may be incorrect. -- DrNixon 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The total number of ATPs is 38. 2(glycoysis) + 30(NADH at the Krebs circle) + 4(FADH2 at the Krebs circle) + 2(GTP at the Krebs circle) = 38 ATP per glucose molecule. However, sometimes it can be 36, depending of the transport of the NADH to the mitochondrion. -- 62.57.165.71 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains this sentence: "This generates a pH gradient and a transmembrane electrical potential across the membrane." Would it be less confusing (and perhaps more correct) to call it a H+ gradient instead? -- Jasabella 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the chemical equation for "hydrogen peroxide into molecular oxygen and water" should have hydrogen peroxide on the left hand side, not water. Aaronatwpi 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope these are helpful, and please let me know if I do something that causes displeasure. -- Ante lan talk 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a reference to back up a specific claim that is the frequent subject of discussion (ATP yield). I also added the <references /> tag to allow inline references to be displayed. I created a section, "Further Reading", for the Lehninger reference, because it no longer fit the formatting of the references section. Furthermore, it wasn't used as a typical reference because it was not cited to support any specific claim in this article. I'm sure there's a better way to deal with it, but I'll leave the discovery of that to someone else. -- Ante lan talk 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
full references needed for accessment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.29.58 ( talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Rather than giving all remarks at one time as I usually do, I'll keep feeding in things as I come across them. Since they may be mostly clarifications for my understanding, this will be a better model to follow. The remarks are given in the following paragraphs :
Firstly, I must say that this is one of the good articles on cell biology in Wikipedia that I have come across. It is well developed, with references, seems quite complete in its coverage(
AshLin 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)) and well-organised. This is how the article fares with respect to the
Good article criteria:
( 95.89.84.153 ( talk) 13:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC))
Done AshLin 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have references to bovine, mammalian etc. I got the impression the mechanism was a eukayotic one. So why mention of these terms? Is the example given here an example of how it proceeds in cows? Are the mechanisms different for other taxa of eukaryotes? Please clarify the terms? AshLin 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The image [1] needs to be included here albeit at smaller thumb size. The ATPSynthase is as much or more important than the ETC complex molecules which are given in such detail above, and you have given images there. Dont worry - you are very far from the state where adding more images would be superfluous. AshLin 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit. Could someone add sodium azide as an inhibitor of complex IV.
Thanks
[2]
[3]
[1]
Someone please insert this into the table, I don't know how.
- Antimycin binds to the Qi site of Complex III inhibiting the oxidation of ubiquinol
Also we need to state what type of organism is affected, e.g. in some cases bacteria only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.148.249 ( talk) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, Tim! Your article is titled 'Oxidative phosphorylation' but yet the key mechanism of phosphorylation has not been elaborated upon! Major flaw here! This is what is called a major SD flaw in military parlance. We have to, have to get this right. FA peer review will tear us apart! AshLin 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have an excellent introduction - but there's a problem! As per WP FA Criterion 2(a) and MOS Guide to layout, the introduction to an article needs to be a well structured summary which gives an overview of the article, sets the stage for the section and contains no facts which do not occur elsewhere. So you need to rewrite one from scratch!
Now what about the present introduction. It could form a good opening section giving the overview and setting up the other headings, with a title such as 'mechanism' or something like that. The section could carry a complete, reasonably concise and good overview of the complete mechanism, the subsequent sections giving details of ETC etc.
The text below needs to be moved out of ETC section as it refers to the overall process of oxidative phosphorylation:
It also appears that the Chemiosmosis section is a logical part of the proposed initial section dealing with the overall mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation. AshLin 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could 'cellular fermentation' and 'sugar-phosphate esters' be wikilinked. AshLin 19:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tim. I'm done. I'm only a run-of-the-mill editor who can project as to how things should be and judge if existing work meets upto that expectation. For more serious development towards FA you will need a very competent editor who thinks very differently from me to do a first-class peer review. ( I know I'm quite weak on MOS issues). After such a review, FA should be a piece of cake. Could I also request you to deal with these issues early so that I can pass it before 12 Aug 2007 to meet my five article requirement for my my first barnstar? AshLin 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, there's one more point that I noticed which I give below. Besides that, the only things pending are the wikilinking of 'ubiquinol' and the rewrite of introduction. Rewrite of introduction is not required as per GA, You can do it later as per your convenience, or not at all. Remember that FA review can peel off the skin off an article and look below. They can be merciless nitpickers. Better not to give them quickfail criteria. Let them nitpick on minor style issues rather than important criteria. So you literally have to take up each coloured glass sheet (important MOS guideline or FA criterion) and look at the article through it. Finish these two points and I'm done. The article reads much better now!
Regards, AshLin 10:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
References
Congratulations, Tim, Oxidative phosphorylation is now a GA. AshLin 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Its great to see you developing the wiki even more. However, I still find the lead difficult to follow and this hampers my understanding of the issue. I've taken the liberty of rewording of the lead to read more simply for me and other scientifically challenged as follows :
I request you to consider this as an alternative to the present lead. Regards, AshLin 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the introductory paragraph of the article, as it currently exists, is suitable for a biochemistry textbook, not an encyclopedia. The legend of the first figure on the page links to Citric acid cycle, but the figure itself uses the term "TCA cycle". As far as I can tell, the term "TCA cycle" is never used anywhere on the page except in the figure. Maybe the introduction could use an illustration of a simplified oxidative phosphorylation system. The greater complexity of eukaryotic oxidative phosphorylation could be covered later in the article. Key concepts: protons moving across a membrane, proton-driven ATP synthesis (phosphorylation), proton-pumping electron transport protein (PPETP) and the overall goal of transforming chemical energy from what is available in various "food molecules" into a standard form (ATP) that can be used by many cell processes. Maybe there could be a table/diagram showing available chemical energy in the "food" and "waste" molecules compared to ADP and ATP.....some visual representation of energy in the reactants and products. -- JWSchmidt 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made a proposal for an Introduction to biochemistry article at the MCB wikiproject. Tim Vickers 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Electrochemical potential. We need to include somewhere an equation that shows the difference of chemical potentials of protons exactly as sum of electric potential (delta-Psi) and delta-pH. Unfortunately, this is not clear at all from WP article Nernst equation. An equation for delta mu-H as sum of delta-Psi and delta-pH could be included in article electrochemical gradient,... but "electrochemical gradient" is actually wrong or misleading term. The only thing that matters here is difference of electrochemical potentials in media from different sides of the membrane. Gradient is not the difference of potentials in and out the cell. Gradient shows how fast a property (say potential) changes in the given point of space. Biophys 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Inroduction of this article. May be it worth mentioning that Oxidative phosphorylation is a more efficient and evolutionary advanced mechanism, which has been developed instead of the more ancient
glycolysis, and compare the number of ATP molecules produced in glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation.
"Although the many forms of life on Earth use a range of different nutrients, almost all carry out oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP". This seems to be an overstatement with regard to many bacteria and plants.
Although the ultimate goal of oxidative phosphorylation is to produce ATP, it only produces delta muH (which is also produced in photosynthesis, by bacteiorhodopsin, and so on.). The existence of electrochemical potential difference as a "common energetic currency" in very different biological systems is the essence of chemiosmotic theory. May be this should be mentioned in second rather than third paragraph. (but some bacteria use sodium gradient rather than H+ gradient - see I just said "gradient" because it is easier to say) Biophys 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Two things seem off with the picture illustrating the reaction meachanism of complex III:
Narayanese 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit from:
to
the whole idea seems to have changed. The old wording makes it sound like "this is how it works here, but this is not how other things work other places" whereas the new wording sounds like "this isn't how it usually works here but that's not how it usually works here." What is the "unusual" aspect here--how this enzyme works compared to others, or a rare alternative way that this enzyme can work? DMacks ( talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"Kinetic energy" changed to "electrochemical gradient" as the driver for ATP synthetase, because metabolic reactions take place in an extreme low-Reynolds-number environment where moving parts (e.g. protein subunits) are so heavily damped by frequent molecular collisions that they have no opportunity to acquire or maintain a momentum significantly above that of random Brownian motion. Though ATP synthetase is a proton-driven motor, it is unlike a macroscopic electric motor whose armature has significant momentum and low enough friction that it would keep spinning for a while even if the battery were disconnected. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 10:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:ATPsynthase labelled.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Oxidative phosphorylation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
My answer is NO. For the largest part it is superfluous, because it is giving information about the electron transport chain and on that subject there already is an article. I ask the writer to shorten the article and really write about the subject. Not for the first time I notice that people tend to exaggerate in their writing of articles.
In the first image comment we read: "... oxidative phosphorylation in prokaryotes", while the picture is about oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondrion of eukaryotes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojtabakd ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
This section states that 1 NADH produces 3 ATPs.
The section above (ATP synthase) states that 3 to 4 protons are needed for 1 ATP.
To my knowledge 1 NADH transports 2 electrons. NADH → NAD+ + H+ + 2e.
So the math doesn't add up. Can someone please explain in layman's language? Thx!
2A02:A210:2142:6C00:1C1A:590:FC44:6480 (
talk) 23:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxidative phosphorylation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Oxidative phosphorylation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Things to consider adding to this article:
1) Diagram or illustration of transmembrane and free electron carrier molecules (Complexes I, II, III, IV, and V).
a) Coenzyme Q (Ubiquinone) b) cytochromes; heme prosthetics groups c) Iron-Sulfur proteins (including Rieske iron-sulfur proteins)
2) Discuss the proton gradient in terms of chemiosmotic theory.
a) Charge Seperation b) pH differences between the intermembrane spaces and the matrix.
3) Breif review of redox reactions and reduction potential (or link to article discussing redox reactions).
4) Discussion on the importance of respiration to the introduction of oxygen as a final electron acceptor.
5) Discuss the Q Cycle
6) Census of electrons versus protons. (ie. two electrons release versus four protons released)
7) Discussion on the rotational catalysis mechanism of ATP synthase.
a) Currently the article makes it sound as though protons can flow in either direction across the ATP synthase complex. b) Discuss various subunits to protein. c) Discuss the Binding-Change model.
-- Mike Filbin 23:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
-- CoeurDeLion
The intro bio text I am looking at reports 30 ATP. I don't have a reason to doubt it. Citric acid cycle may be incorrect. -- DrNixon 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The total number of ATPs is 38. 2(glycoysis) + 30(NADH at the Krebs circle) + 4(FADH2 at the Krebs circle) + 2(GTP at the Krebs circle) = 38 ATP per glucose molecule. However, sometimes it can be 36, depending of the transport of the NADH to the mitochondrion. -- 62.57.165.71 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains this sentence: "This generates a pH gradient and a transmembrane electrical potential across the membrane." Would it be less confusing (and perhaps more correct) to call it a H+ gradient instead? -- Jasabella 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the chemical equation for "hydrogen peroxide into molecular oxygen and water" should have hydrogen peroxide on the left hand side, not water. Aaronatwpi 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope these are helpful, and please let me know if I do something that causes displeasure. -- Ante lan talk 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a reference to back up a specific claim that is the frequent subject of discussion (ATP yield). I also added the <references /> tag to allow inline references to be displayed. I created a section, "Further Reading", for the Lehninger reference, because it no longer fit the formatting of the references section. Furthermore, it wasn't used as a typical reference because it was not cited to support any specific claim in this article. I'm sure there's a better way to deal with it, but I'll leave the discovery of that to someone else. -- Ante lan talk 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
full references needed for accessment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.29.58 ( talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Rather than giving all remarks at one time as I usually do, I'll keep feeding in things as I come across them. Since they may be mostly clarifications for my understanding, this will be a better model to follow. The remarks are given in the following paragraphs :
Firstly, I must say that this is one of the good articles on cell biology in Wikipedia that I have come across. It is well developed, with references, seems quite complete in its coverage(
AshLin 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)) and well-organised. This is how the article fares with respect to the
Good article criteria:
( 95.89.84.153 ( talk) 13:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC))
Done AshLin 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have references to bovine, mammalian etc. I got the impression the mechanism was a eukayotic one. So why mention of these terms? Is the example given here an example of how it proceeds in cows? Are the mechanisms different for other taxa of eukaryotes? Please clarify the terms? AshLin 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The image [1] needs to be included here albeit at smaller thumb size. The ATPSynthase is as much or more important than the ETC complex molecules which are given in such detail above, and you have given images there. Dont worry - you are very far from the state where adding more images would be superfluous. AshLin 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit. Could someone add sodium azide as an inhibitor of complex IV.
Thanks
[2]
[3]
[1]
Someone please insert this into the table, I don't know how.
- Antimycin binds to the Qi site of Complex III inhibiting the oxidation of ubiquinol
Also we need to state what type of organism is affected, e.g. in some cases bacteria only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.148.249 ( talk) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, Tim! Your article is titled 'Oxidative phosphorylation' but yet the key mechanism of phosphorylation has not been elaborated upon! Major flaw here! This is what is called a major SD flaw in military parlance. We have to, have to get this right. FA peer review will tear us apart! AshLin 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have an excellent introduction - but there's a problem! As per WP FA Criterion 2(a) and MOS Guide to layout, the introduction to an article needs to be a well structured summary which gives an overview of the article, sets the stage for the section and contains no facts which do not occur elsewhere. So you need to rewrite one from scratch!
Now what about the present introduction. It could form a good opening section giving the overview and setting up the other headings, with a title such as 'mechanism' or something like that. The section could carry a complete, reasonably concise and good overview of the complete mechanism, the subsequent sections giving details of ETC etc.
The text below needs to be moved out of ETC section as it refers to the overall process of oxidative phosphorylation:
It also appears that the Chemiosmosis section is a logical part of the proposed initial section dealing with the overall mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation. AshLin 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could 'cellular fermentation' and 'sugar-phosphate esters' be wikilinked. AshLin 19:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tim. I'm done. I'm only a run-of-the-mill editor who can project as to how things should be and judge if existing work meets upto that expectation. For more serious development towards FA you will need a very competent editor who thinks very differently from me to do a first-class peer review. ( I know I'm quite weak on MOS issues). After such a review, FA should be a piece of cake. Could I also request you to deal with these issues early so that I can pass it before 12 Aug 2007 to meet my five article requirement for my my first barnstar? AshLin 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, there's one more point that I noticed which I give below. Besides that, the only things pending are the wikilinking of 'ubiquinol' and the rewrite of introduction. Rewrite of introduction is not required as per GA, You can do it later as per your convenience, or not at all. Remember that FA review can peel off the skin off an article and look below. They can be merciless nitpickers. Better not to give them quickfail criteria. Let them nitpick on minor style issues rather than important criteria. So you literally have to take up each coloured glass sheet (important MOS guideline or FA criterion) and look at the article through it. Finish these two points and I'm done. The article reads much better now!
Regards, AshLin 10:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Done AshLin 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
References
Congratulations, Tim, Oxidative phosphorylation is now a GA. AshLin 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Its great to see you developing the wiki even more. However, I still find the lead difficult to follow and this hampers my understanding of the issue. I've taken the liberty of rewording of the lead to read more simply for me and other scientifically challenged as follows :
I request you to consider this as an alternative to the present lead. Regards, AshLin 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the introductory paragraph of the article, as it currently exists, is suitable for a biochemistry textbook, not an encyclopedia. The legend of the first figure on the page links to Citric acid cycle, but the figure itself uses the term "TCA cycle". As far as I can tell, the term "TCA cycle" is never used anywhere on the page except in the figure. Maybe the introduction could use an illustration of a simplified oxidative phosphorylation system. The greater complexity of eukaryotic oxidative phosphorylation could be covered later in the article. Key concepts: protons moving across a membrane, proton-driven ATP synthesis (phosphorylation), proton-pumping electron transport protein (PPETP) and the overall goal of transforming chemical energy from what is available in various "food molecules" into a standard form (ATP) that can be used by many cell processes. Maybe there could be a table/diagram showing available chemical energy in the "food" and "waste" molecules compared to ADP and ATP.....some visual representation of energy in the reactants and products. -- JWSchmidt 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made a proposal for an Introduction to biochemistry article at the MCB wikiproject. Tim Vickers 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Electrochemical potential. We need to include somewhere an equation that shows the difference of chemical potentials of protons exactly as sum of electric potential (delta-Psi) and delta-pH. Unfortunately, this is not clear at all from WP article Nernst equation. An equation for delta mu-H as sum of delta-Psi and delta-pH could be included in article electrochemical gradient,... but "electrochemical gradient" is actually wrong or misleading term. The only thing that matters here is difference of electrochemical potentials in media from different sides of the membrane. Gradient is not the difference of potentials in and out the cell. Gradient shows how fast a property (say potential) changes in the given point of space. Biophys 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Inroduction of this article. May be it worth mentioning that Oxidative phosphorylation is a more efficient and evolutionary advanced mechanism, which has been developed instead of the more ancient
glycolysis, and compare the number of ATP molecules produced in glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation.
"Although the many forms of life on Earth use a range of different nutrients, almost all carry out oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP". This seems to be an overstatement with regard to many bacteria and plants.
Although the ultimate goal of oxidative phosphorylation is to produce ATP, it only produces delta muH (which is also produced in photosynthesis, by bacteiorhodopsin, and so on.). The existence of electrochemical potential difference as a "common energetic currency" in very different biological systems is the essence of chemiosmotic theory. May be this should be mentioned in second rather than third paragraph. (but some bacteria use sodium gradient rather than H+ gradient - see I just said "gradient" because it is easier to say) Biophys 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Two things seem off with the picture illustrating the reaction meachanism of complex III:
Narayanese 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit from:
to
the whole idea seems to have changed. The old wording makes it sound like "this is how it works here, but this is not how other things work other places" whereas the new wording sounds like "this isn't how it usually works here but that's not how it usually works here." What is the "unusual" aspect here--how this enzyme works compared to others, or a rare alternative way that this enzyme can work? DMacks ( talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"Kinetic energy" changed to "electrochemical gradient" as the driver for ATP synthetase, because metabolic reactions take place in an extreme low-Reynolds-number environment where moving parts (e.g. protein subunits) are so heavily damped by frequent molecular collisions that they have no opportunity to acquire or maintain a momentum significantly above that of random Brownian motion. Though ATP synthetase is a proton-driven motor, it is unlike a macroscopic electric motor whose armature has significant momentum and low enough friction that it would keep spinning for a while even if the battery were disconnected. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 10:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:ATPsynthase labelled.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Oxidative phosphorylation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
My answer is NO. For the largest part it is superfluous, because it is giving information about the electron transport chain and on that subject there already is an article. I ask the writer to shorten the article and really write about the subject. Not for the first time I notice that people tend to exaggerate in their writing of articles.
In the first image comment we read: "... oxidative phosphorylation in prokaryotes", while the picture is about oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondrion of eukaryotes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojtabakd ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
This section states that 1 NADH produces 3 ATPs.
The section above (ATP synthase) states that 3 to 4 protons are needed for 1 ATP.
To my knowledge 1 NADH transports 2 electrons. NADH → NAD+ + H+ + 2e.
So the math doesn't add up. Can someone please explain in layman's language? Thx!
2A02:A210:2142:6C00:1C1A:590:FC44:6480 (
talk) 23:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)