Recent comments in /f/askscience

Ausoge t1_j2z5atr wrote

A bacteria cell consists of many different parts, but the relevant one here is called the "Bi-Lipid Layer", which is a layer of lipids that enclose the cell and essentially function as its skin.

Lipids are a group of compounds that include organic fats, oils, and waxes.

In general, most things are either hydrophobic (fat/oil soluble, but not water soluble) or hydrophillic (water soluble but not lipid soluble). Things are usually one or the other.

Detergents are somewhat unique in the fact that they are both hydrophillic and hydrophobic - they bind to both oil and water, and allow them to be bonded together in very close proximity, where they would usually very strongly repel each other.

So, you have a bacteria with its lipidous cell wall, immersed in water. The water is normally repelled by this layer, preventing the bacteria from dissolving into it. Enter a molecule of detergent. This molecule bonds strongly to the bacteria's protective lipid layer. This causes a very strong attraction to the surrounding water, while adjacent lipid molecules, which are not bonded to detergent, strongly repel the water. This bonding and attraction between a water molecule and the lipid molecule is now so strong that the bacterial cell wall rips and ruptures apart, thereby spilling its innards and killing the cell.

Edit: a commenter corrected my phrasing - the terminology is lipid bilayer, not bi-lipid layer.

265

Weed_O_Whirler t1_j2z4ahc wrote

The maximum speed the planet could accelerate you to, assuming you're starting at rest, is the escape velocity of that planet.

To truly reach that velocity, you'd have to start at a distance of "infinity" away from the planet. Obviously, you can't start at infinity, but even starting out relatively close- like the distance to the Moon, gets you within 99% of Earth's escape velocity.

What is kind of cool is, the way you calculate escape velocity is basically the exact same calculation to calculate the maximum speed a body could get you to. It all comes down to conservation of energy. The argument goes: Energy is conserved. If you start at an infinite distance away from the Earth, at rest, your total potential energy is zero, and your kinetic energy is zero. So, as you fall towards Earth, your total energy must stay zero. Since kinetic energy is positive, and potential energy is negative- the closer you get to Earth, the more negative your potential energy must be, and thus your kinetic energy has to grow to keep it at zero. So, at any distance, r, from the Earth, if you started at infinity and moved towards the surface, you could calculate your speed as follows:

1/2mv^2 - GMm/r = 0

cancel m and move over the potential energy term

1/2v^2 = GM/r

Solve for v

v = sqrt(2*G*M/r)
65

SignalDifficult5061 t1_j2yt44u wrote

Interestingly, there are some very weird things that could happen with that rate.

An extreme example I know of is Xenopus oocyte maturation. Oocyte maturation goes through a number of steps, in one of those the oocyte basically hoards a whole bunch of mRNA but doesn't do much with it (for like days), then at the next stage it makes a whole lot of protein but little mRNA.

So in this (somewhat extreme) example calculating the rate of proteins made per transcript is going to yield very different answers, and is also going to obscure what is really going on in the cell.

This is an extreme example, but I'm sure you can see the difficulties.

1

SignalDifficult5061 t1_j2ynm86 wrote

I would tend to think that has a worse chance at a useful and glib answer (although you may find some). For anything practical, that rate might not be super informative about what is going on.

It is harder to study because of differences in protein degradation rates and other things. High absolute numbers of a protein made per hour with a high decay rate can have the same ratio as a slow synthesis and slow degradation rate protein, There are a number of other technical challenges. Although there are certainly rates known for some individual mRNAs, and have been for some time, it is harder to look at that on the whole genome

That being said, the paper below suggests one to millions per generation (Figure S1 supplemental), which they define as a minimum of about 21.5 minutes (varies substantially).

The paper below is an E.coli example. It may very quite a bit in other organisms and cell types in multicellular organisms at least. life stage etc.

"Quantifying Absolute Protein Synthesis Rates Reveals Principles Underlying Allocation of Cellular Resources" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414002323

2

SubstantialExtent819 t1_j2ync7e wrote

Really good idea to keep your sponge/scourer dry between washing sessions, don't leave it in the sink to stay moist and help bacteria survive. I often nuke the sponge/scourer in the microwave. Add soap, some water, put in bowl or plate and nuke on high for 2 minutes. Also has the benefit of steaming up the inside of the microwave and makes the microwave easier to clean.

27

Steinway-Grand-D t1_j2yftto wrote

As far as I know galaxies are relativly flat. And I'd say our solar system is also quite flat too, when I look at the orbits of the planets. I've read that the reason is rotation? I can picture a new object coming into a flat system which already has a certain rotation and which will adjust over time to that system. But when and how did the rotation start and why does it seem like the vast majority is flat?

1