Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Talk:Mitochondria

From Bioblast
Bioblast wiki

Popular Bioblast page

Mitochondria has been accessed more than
  • 5,000 times (2016-08-20)


mt and redundancy

In general, "mt" is fine and sensible.
However, with regards to the PT pore, I recommend that the issue be resolved by simply omitting the "m". The "m" in mPTP is wholly redundant since the PT pore is only found in mitochondria. The qualifier "m", "mt", "mi", or whatever, should only be used when non-mitochondrial variants are also found, as in the case of miCK; the qualifier is clearly superfluous with PDH, ANT or any other mitochondrial-specific protein (including the PT pore).
On a lighter note, spare a thought for speakers: Try saying mtPTP (have you tried it?) a few times and, I suggest, the audience would fall asleep!
Best regards
Martin Crompton, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, Unversity College London (2012-04-30)


Whoa! I greatly prefer mitoKATP, a term I introduced. And, I believe that mPTP is a scientific overreach. In 1986, Andy Beavis and I published the first report on the inner membrane anion channel. (By the way, we called it IMAC, an abbreviation that has so far stuck, but I suppose you will want to change it to mtIMAC? Or mighty-MAC?). In that paper, I referred to the MPT as the "Ca-dependent hole" (mtCDH?). Although fairly accurate, I think Paolo Bernardi will not let me get away with that again! I use MPT, because we are still not sure what it is. Martin Crompton, who has published some of the best research on MPT, actually measured its average pore properties. He has also remained firm that the ANT (mtANT???) is a component of MPT, with which I agree. But do we know that MPT is a pore in the scientific sense? Or is it a hole of varying, time- and condition-dependent diameter as more ANT aggregates (a la Vercesi)? At this point, we know that it is a permeability transition, and I think we should stick with that for now. On this issue, I will however defer to Martin.
Sincerely,
Keith Garlid