On the power per mitochondrion and the number of associated active ATP synthases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent experiments and thermodynamic arguments suggest that mitochondrial temperatures are higher than those of the cytoplasm. A “hot mitochondrion” calls for a closer examination of the energy balance that endows it with these claimed elevated temperatures. As a first step in this effort, we present here a semi-quantitative bookkeeping whereby, in one stroke, a formula is proposed that yields the rate of heat production in a typical mitochondrion and a formula for estimating the number of “ active ” ATP synthase molecules per mitochondrion. The number of active ATP synthase molecules is the equivalent number of ATP synthases operating at 100% capacity to maintain the rate of mitochondrial heat generation. Scaling laws are shown to determine the number of active ATP synthase molecules in a mitochondrion and mitochondrial rate of heat production, whereby both appear to scale with cell volume. Four heterotrophic protozoan cell types are considered in this study. The studied cells, selected to cover a wide range of sizes (volumes) from ca. 100 μ m 3 to 1 million μ m 3 , are estimated to exhibit a power per mitochondrion ranging from ca. 1 pW to 0.03 pW. In these cells, the corresponding number of active ATP synthases per mitochondrion ranges from 5000 to just about a hundred. The absolute total number of ATP synthase molecules per mitochondrion, regardless of their activity status, can be up to two orders of magnitudes higher.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".