The physical world is an intricate dance between matter, information, and energy. Recognizing that mitochondria are alive will open new horizons into how we learn about, and build with, biology.
This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.
Mitochondria are fascinating and there is still a huge amount to learn about them but they are totally dependent on the cell's machinery. Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. A glaring omission if you are trying to make the case that mitochondria are independently living. My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?
The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. This really isn't the case. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria was challenged by many, and it did spark a scientific debate - that's how science works. She won the argument comprehensively decades ago and is well established science. There have been many such endosymbiotic events in the history of life - there are subfields of evolutionary biology that study these processes.
I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a spiritual connection to the aliveness of mitochondria, but a pragmatic orientation towards their health and wellbeing. And there is a lot of scientific opportunity to explore there.
The idea of mitochondria as existing in an enduring status of independence inside human (and other) cells is even more exciting as the idea of them as absorbed symbionts. The idea makes me obscurely happy.
Interesting essay! Endosymbiosis is fascinating indeed. Thanks for calling attention to the ability to transfer mitochondria between related species. I was unaware of that fact. Very neat!
Are you arguing for mitochondria to be considered a separate species? If so, what specific benefits do you envision? I think it might cause mitochondria to be less salient, not more. For example, if I were to download the current human reference genome (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/GCF_000001405.40/), the mitochondrial DNA would automatically be included in that, essentially being treated like a chromosome. If human mitochondria were a separate species, the mitochondrial genome wouldn't be included in the human reference genome, and it seems to me that researchers would be more likely to ignore the impacts of mitochondrial genes.
I also foresee headaches trying to divide up the mitochondrial clade. Given that even orangutan mitochondria aren't compatible with human cells, there's an argument to be made that most eukaryotic species carry their own unique species of mitochondria. Seems like a lot of trouble for unclear benefit. I don't disagree that mitochondria are more than just organelles, but I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind thinking of them as distinct from the eukaryotic cells that they're a part of. In my experience, the fact that they're essentially bacteria isn't a neglected concept in biology. Perhaps your experience differs, though?
Maybe in some alternate universe, the microbiologists were the ones to discover the mitochondria and they are thought of as mutualistic bacteria. I wonder if someone there might write an essay arguing that scientists who study eukaryotes aren't taking them seriously enough, and that they should be considered to be an integral part of eukaryotic cells rather than mere symbiotes.
Adding a correction here: Russian biologist Konstantin Sergejewitch Mereschkowsky hypothesized that chloroplasts originated from the endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria in 1910 (half a century before chloroplast DNA was even discovered!). Lynn Margulis might have rediscovered the theory independently, as she does not cite this work directly (although she does cite work that cites Mereschkowsky). The popularization of the theory, along with the reference to endosymbionts beyond the chloroplast, can still be attributed to her.
An additional correction: Claude Shannon died in 2001. He worked in the mid to late 20th century, not the early 20th. One summer long ago I attended the same program as his son Andy (there yclept Son of Shannon :-)).
Excellent, philosophically spot-on article. Contrary to some comments, "what is life?", "are mitochondria alive?" and similar semantic/philosophical questions have always been important to the progress of science. Far from being arbitrary, the concepts and the language we try to faithfully express them in are as constitutive and determinative of "the science" as experiment/experience. As noted, mitochondria do not always even reside inside cells, sometimes entering and leaving or in the bloodstream. Lane's book cited below, considers the compatibility of mitochondrial and nuclear genomes to be a driver of eukaryotic speciation and evolution.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, so beyond studying biological structures, saying "they are what they are", people also ask how what is could come to be, try to explain and understand what is by the need for it to arise from an evolutionary pathway respecting physical constraints. Mitochondria arising from bacteria were the crucial development, an endosymbiosis necessary for multicellular, physiologically complex life, eukaryotic life.
William Martin, coauthor of the Mereschkowsky paper just linked (thanks!) also collaborates with evolutionary biochemist Nick Lane, as cited there. Lane's The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution & the Origins of Complex Life- Profile Books (2015) notes Peter Mitchell germinated his epochal ideas solving the mystery of mitochondrial bioenergetics by philosophically ruminating on membranes. Following this train of thought, Lane asks whether retrotransposons, plasmids and viruses in addition to mitochondria are alive. Answering, "The environment, by its very nature, seems extraneous to life; we shall see that it is not at all. The two always go hand in hand." The same relation of environment to life as being constitutive of "life" that is emphasized here.
In addition to the mitochondria related conditions, diabetes, cardiovascular, Alzheimer's mentioned, cancer shows the practical use of thinking this way. For cancer is actually the emperor, the most intricate of all mitochondrial dysfunctions. The mitochondrial / metabolic nature of cancer is originally due to Otto Warburg and now championed by Thomas Seyfried. Seyfried has amassed overwhelming evidence and reasoning showing that the still accepted theory of cancer- even in articles here- the Somatic Mutation Theory suggested by Theodor Boveri & winning acceptance in the 80s by Bishop & Varmus's work, is inadequate, non-mechanistic, part of, but not the heart of the answer. Mitochondria & metabolism are.
Though he omits any citation, in that book Lane simply asserts the Warburg/Seyfried position as fact. The Somatic Mutation Theory won out over the prime contender, Peyton Rous's theory of cancer viruses when the relation of such viruses to human genes were clarified in the 80s. But Rous guessed more generally that cancer was caused by parasites, and from this view, that is exactly what a cancer mitochondrion is, a bacterium adapting to its environment by (de-)evolving from a symbiote into a parasite, causing somatic mutations, uncontrolled growth, abandoning its many signaling and cell-death functions, etc.
Seyfried is at Boston College, a hop, skip & a jump from Asimov's. So I think an interview with him, or an article on his work or by him would be a great fit and follow up for Asimov Press.
I'm very puzzled by this essay. "If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?" Lots of people do great work on mitochondria; I've never heard any of them care about the semantic distinction of whether they are "alive" or not. All the fascinating aspects of mitochondrial activity are what they are, just as all the fascinating aspects of motor protein activity, or cytoskeletal activity, or embryonic patterning activity, are what they are. What does choosing a terminology of "living" vs "nonliving" matter? I certainly agree with the author that mitochondria are amazing!
Thank you Niko and the Asimov Press team for all of the help! Excited to discuss this in the comments.
Fascinating article. Just a small typo: Einstein and Shannon worked at the beginning of the 20th century, not the 19th.
Cheers, thanks!
This essay is a model of clear, concise science-for-the-layman.
This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.
Mitochondria are fascinating and there is still a huge amount to learn about them but they are totally dependent on the cell's machinery. Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. A glaring omission if you are trying to make the case that mitochondria are independently living. My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?
The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. This really isn't the case. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria was challenged by many, and it did spark a scientific debate - that's how science works. She won the argument comprehensively decades ago and is well established science. There have been many such endosymbiotic events in the history of life - there are subfields of evolutionary biology that study these processes.
I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a spiritual connection to the aliveness of mitochondria, but a pragmatic orientation towards their health and wellbeing. And there is a lot of scientific opportunity to explore there.
Thank you for writing this article about my mom’s work.
The idea of mitochondria as existing in an enduring status of independence inside human (and other) cells is even more exciting as the idea of them as absorbed symbionts. The idea makes me obscurely happy.
Interesting essay! Endosymbiosis is fascinating indeed. Thanks for calling attention to the ability to transfer mitochondria between related species. I was unaware of that fact. Very neat!
Are you arguing for mitochondria to be considered a separate species? If so, what specific benefits do you envision? I think it might cause mitochondria to be less salient, not more. For example, if I were to download the current human reference genome (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/GCF_000001405.40/), the mitochondrial DNA would automatically be included in that, essentially being treated like a chromosome. If human mitochondria were a separate species, the mitochondrial genome wouldn't be included in the human reference genome, and it seems to me that researchers would be more likely to ignore the impacts of mitochondrial genes.
I also foresee headaches trying to divide up the mitochondrial clade. Given that even orangutan mitochondria aren't compatible with human cells, there's an argument to be made that most eukaryotic species carry their own unique species of mitochondria. Seems like a lot of trouble for unclear benefit. I don't disagree that mitochondria are more than just organelles, but I'm struggling to see the reasoning behind thinking of them as distinct from the eukaryotic cells that they're a part of. In my experience, the fact that they're essentially bacteria isn't a neglected concept in biology. Perhaps your experience differs, though?
Maybe in some alternate universe, the microbiologists were the ones to discover the mitochondria and they are thought of as mutualistic bacteria. I wonder if someone there might write an essay arguing that scientists who study eukaryotes aren't taking them seriously enough, and that they should be considered to be an integral part of eukaryotic cells rather than mere symbiotes.
Adding a correction here: Russian biologist Konstantin Sergejewitch Mereschkowsky hypothesized that chloroplasts originated from the endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria in 1910 (half a century before chloroplast DNA was even discovered!). Lynn Margulis might have rediscovered the theory independently, as she does not cite this work directly (although she does cite work that cites Mereschkowsky). The popularization of the theory, along with the reference to endosymbionts beyond the chloroplast, can still be attributed to her.
I am adding an English translation of the original paper right here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264720301623
I apologize for the mistake in the article!
You may be interested in this: A New Scientific Model of Mania and Depression, with Testable Predictions
https://breckyunits.com/bipolarModel.html
An additional correction: Claude Shannon died in 2001. He worked in the mid to late 20th century, not the early 20th. One summer long ago I attended the same program as his son Andy (there yclept Son of Shannon :-)).
Excellent, philosophically spot-on article. Contrary to some comments, "what is life?", "are mitochondria alive?" and similar semantic/philosophical questions have always been important to the progress of science. Far from being arbitrary, the concepts and the language we try to faithfully express them in are as constitutive and determinative of "the science" as experiment/experience. As noted, mitochondria do not always even reside inside cells, sometimes entering and leaving or in the bloodstream. Lane's book cited below, considers the compatibility of mitochondrial and nuclear genomes to be a driver of eukaryotic speciation and evolution.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, so beyond studying biological structures, saying "they are what they are", people also ask how what is could come to be, try to explain and understand what is by the need for it to arise from an evolutionary pathway respecting physical constraints. Mitochondria arising from bacteria were the crucial development, an endosymbiosis necessary for multicellular, physiologically complex life, eukaryotic life.
William Martin, coauthor of the Mereschkowsky paper just linked (thanks!) also collaborates with evolutionary biochemist Nick Lane, as cited there. Lane's The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution & the Origins of Complex Life- Profile Books (2015) notes Peter Mitchell germinated his epochal ideas solving the mystery of mitochondrial bioenergetics by philosophically ruminating on membranes. Following this train of thought, Lane asks whether retrotransposons, plasmids and viruses in addition to mitochondria are alive. Answering, "The environment, by its very nature, seems extraneous to life; we shall see that it is not at all. The two always go hand in hand." The same relation of environment to life as being constitutive of "life" that is emphasized here.
In addition to the mitochondria related conditions, diabetes, cardiovascular, Alzheimer's mentioned, cancer shows the practical use of thinking this way. For cancer is actually the emperor, the most intricate of all mitochondrial dysfunctions. The mitochondrial / metabolic nature of cancer is originally due to Otto Warburg and now championed by Thomas Seyfried. Seyfried has amassed overwhelming evidence and reasoning showing that the still accepted theory of cancer- even in articles here- the Somatic Mutation Theory suggested by Theodor Boveri & winning acceptance in the 80s by Bishop & Varmus's work, is inadequate, non-mechanistic, part of, but not the heart of the answer. Mitochondria & metabolism are.
Though he omits any citation, in that book Lane simply asserts the Warburg/Seyfried position as fact. The Somatic Mutation Theory won out over the prime contender, Peyton Rous's theory of cancer viruses when the relation of such viruses to human genes were clarified in the 80s. But Rous guessed more generally that cancer was caused by parasites, and from this view, that is exactly what a cancer mitochondrion is, a bacterium adapting to its environment by (de-)evolving from a symbiote into a parasite, causing somatic mutations, uncontrolled growth, abandoning its many signaling and cell-death functions, etc.
Seyfried is at Boston College, a hop, skip & a jump from Asimov's. So I think an interview with him, or an article on his work or by him would be a great fit and follow up for Asimov Press.
.
Our Government
Is Printing
Fiat People.
Not Backed By
Natural Immunity.
.
“Why does being alive matter? Isn’t it all semantics?” Maybe! But here’s a cool video— know any others to share?
https://youtu.be/qxeUZT8lgu8?si=oIKYZx0_OrWQyAo6
I'm very puzzled by this essay. "If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?" Lots of people do great work on mitochondria; I've never heard any of them care about the semantic distinction of whether they are "alive" or not. All the fascinating aspects of mitochondrial activity are what they are, just as all the fascinating aspects of motor protein activity, or cytoskeletal activity, or embryonic patterning activity, are what they are. What does choosing a terminology of "living" vs "nonliving" matter? I certainly agree with the author that mitochondria are amazing!
TO KNOW US IS TO LOVE US