potential energy

Discussion of all aspects of biological molecules, biochemical processes and laboratory procedures in the field.

Moderators: Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:35 am

Agreed... :D ...seems that it just like they create those name... :?
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

User avatar
Poison
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by Poison » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:16 am

thats right, they created that.
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.

2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Post by 2810712 » Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:13 pm

One question here... How does the life make the energy in glycogen and the glycos 'not directly usable'???
See glucose from glycogen and ATP from glucose and the reverse both are feasible reactions... How come that happens... What are the G0 and S and E and H changes... i think any process can't be feasible from both sides... I'm confused... its many days i've read any thermobook... sorry ... but please help...
Also, Bond energy isn't the stored energy in the bond its the energy required to breake the bond or the energy 'released' when the bond is FORMED. THe energy i'm thinking to be the stored part is the vibrational, rotational etc. type of internal Es ... Oh bye i've to brush up all my ex-biologies that are useful in biology.

Ur's questful,
hrushikesh

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:37 pm

Just refer to the law of thermodynamics I: energy can't be created nor destroyed, it just can be re-arranged in the forms.

In the case of Biology..just imagine where there's a place where many glucose molecules stuck in together. Because glucose molecule is polar, their polarity tends to get closer each other and form a glycogen (adding energy levels in the form of chemical bonds).

Bond energy means the amount of energy that needed whether to form the bond or to break the bond. (that's why in chemistry, they divide bond energy into 2 groups: breaking bond-energy and forming bond-energy). When this bond is broken, some energy particles get spreaded out through [E=mc^2] and taking the most miserable form of energy, heat. Tha's what we called Enthropy....

Hope you get my point,
Victor
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

User avatar
jayson
Garter
Garter
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:55 am

Post by jayson » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:42 am

Terry K. wrote:Definitely Glycogen. ATP, it's great and all, but not as great of an energy provider as glucose, which is not as good of a provider as glycogen. I actually had a question like this one on an exam. The question was:
Which of the following has the potential energy?
A. ATP
B. Lipids (obviously not right)
C. Glucose
D. Starch

The answer is Starch of course. If you think in the same context, and replace Starch with Glycogen, then Glycogen is the correct answer. But just knowing what I do, the answer is GLYCOGEN. I'm 200% sure(and that's pretty darn sure)!!!


Can you please explain how Lipid have less potential energy than the rest ? Lipids have glycerol and fatty acids, so naturally they should have the greatest potential energy (ignoring that lot more energy is required to break down the lipid into usable form!)

Thanks.

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:20 pm

I can say that cyclic bond structure in the glucose molecule [precursor of glycogen] contains more potential energy than alifatic bond sructure does in the bonding of glycerol and 3 chain of carbocylic acids......
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:07 pm

don't lipids have more potential energy than sugars? I mean from one gram of lipids you get 9.1 kcal while from 1 gram of glucose you get only 4.3 kcal
Of course, a starch or glycogen molecule have a lot more energy than that of one fat molecule, but if the options were: glucose, ATP, ADP, lipids(just an example) i would go with lipids....
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
mikki
Garter
Garter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Post by mikki » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:53 pm

Virtually every living cell starts with glycolysis. (The one metabolic pathway common in all living organisms). Lots of energy is held inside the chemical bonds holding glucose together. 11 enzymes and 11 chemical reactions are designed to rearrange and breakdown one glucose (6-carbon molecule) into 2 pyruvate molecules. (3-carbons). In the process, 2 ADP molecules are turned into 2 ATP using some of that liberated energy. The path divides as pyruvate moves on. Higher Forms of cells and animals have evolved a way to suck more of the energy out of glucose than just 2 measly ATP- THE KREBS CYCLE and the etc. With oxygen and inside the mitochondria, pyruvate is converted into CO2 and water. liberating enough energy in the process to build at least 34 more ATP. 36 ATPs (2 from glycolysis added to the 34 from the Krebs Cycle) sounds like a lot of energy, but it is still only about 40-45% of what was originally contained in the glucose.

User avatar
victor
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..
Contact:

Post by victor » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:10 pm

So, lipid's calories are beaten by the accumulation of glucose forming glycogen.....
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

User avatar
mikki
Garter
Garter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Post by mikki » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:25 pm

Ok I asked Dr. Neill, my professor and he said, this about it. "All have potential energy. All of these ultimately can be used in cell respiration"

So then I sent the question to our graduate teaching assistant aka my lab instructor and this is a copy and paste of her reply. She always types in caps so that we can find her answers within the email easily. Nobody get upset because this is not yelling.

"THIS IS A WEIRD QUESTION, PERHAPS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT FOR ME? ALL CAN HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY, AND ATP IS ENERGY, RIGHT, THEREFORE IF IT'S FLOATING AROUND, IT HAS POTENTIAL, RIGHT? AND THE OTHER THREE CAN BE CONVERTED IN VARIOUS WAYS TO ENERGY. PERHAPS THE PERSON ASKING THE QUESTION HAS SOMETHING IN MIND I AM UNAWARE OF."

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:14 pm

@mikki
No ofense, but your lab instructor doesn't seem to know much biochemistry
AND ATP IS ENERGY

ATP is not energy. It simply releases energy(7.3kcal) when it is broken down.
THEREFORE IF IT'S FLOATING AROUND, IT HAS POTENTIAL, RIGHT?

I don't really understand what she meant by this: maybe potential energy in a gravitational field where something is considered to have potential energy if they can convert it into kynetic energy by falling. We are discussing a whole different thing here...

36 ATPs (2 from glycolysis added to the 34 from the Krebs Cycle) sounds like a lot of energy

And a little correction here: the krebs cycle produces a measly one GTP and one ATP, it is oxidative phosphorilation that produces the most ATP

@victor
Yeap, that's basically what i'm saying
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
mikki
Garter
Garter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Post by mikki » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:28 am

I'm sorry MrMistery but my information came straight from the 7th edition of Reece and Campbell Biology book. Take it up with them if you think my information is incorrect.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests