Are red blood cells prokaryotic?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
16
down vote
favorite
After searching "do antibiotics impact the immune system" I found out that antibiotics target prokaryotic cells. It all made a lot of sense thinking about all those yoghurt recommendations you get after taking antibiotics : the collateral damage is on the prokaryotic cells that live with us but are not "us" as such.
Except I remembered human red blood cells don't have nuclei, so where's my confusion ?
(I'm only a biology enthusiast)
human-biology microbiology antibiotics red-blood-cell
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
After searching "do antibiotics impact the immune system" I found out that antibiotics target prokaryotic cells. It all made a lot of sense thinking about all those yoghurt recommendations you get after taking antibiotics : the collateral damage is on the prokaryotic cells that live with us but are not "us" as such.
Except I remembered human red blood cells don't have nuclei, so where's my confusion ?
(I'm only a biology enthusiast)
human-biology microbiology antibiotics red-blood-cell
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
After searching "do antibiotics impact the immune system" I found out that antibiotics target prokaryotic cells. It all made a lot of sense thinking about all those yoghurt recommendations you get after taking antibiotics : the collateral damage is on the prokaryotic cells that live with us but are not "us" as such.
Except I remembered human red blood cells don't have nuclei, so where's my confusion ?
(I'm only a biology enthusiast)
human-biology microbiology antibiotics red-blood-cell
After searching "do antibiotics impact the immune system" I found out that antibiotics target prokaryotic cells. It all made a lot of sense thinking about all those yoghurt recommendations you get after taking antibiotics : the collateral damage is on the prokaryotic cells that live with us but are not "us" as such.
Except I remembered human red blood cells don't have nuclei, so where's my confusion ?
(I'm only a biology enthusiast)
human-biology microbiology antibiotics red-blood-cell
edited 20 hours ago
asked 2 days ago
James Well
1926
1926
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
32
down vote
accepted
When differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are taught in an introductory biology course, a generic prokaryotic cell and a generic eukaryotic cell are typically compared. Cells in a complex multicellular organism, like a human, are quite diverse. Human red blood cells are one example of a highly specialized cell with a mature form that is quite different from the typical eukaryotic cell. Keratinocytes in the epidermis are another example (see Ross Histology, Ch. 15). In both cases, these cells produce large amounts of a single protein, eventually, at their most mature stage, stopping protein synthesis, extruding their nuclei and most other organelles.
The absence of a nucleus or other organelles, however, does not necessarily make either of these cells more susceptible to antibacterial antibiotics. Antibiotics are targeted toward things that bacteria have (positive differences), rather than the absence of typical eukaryotic structures. Almost all antibacterial antibiotics have one of three targets (see Goodman and Gilman Chs. 48, 52-55):
The bacterial cell wall or membrane
protein synthetic machinery
specialized metabolites required by bacteria
There is (almost) no overlap between these structures in bacteria and structures in any of the diverse array of human cells. The one partial exception is a similarity between the mitochondrial and bacterial ribosome, that may, for example, be responsible for some of the toxicity of chloramphenicol (G&G Ch. 55).
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
 |Â
show 10 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
No, they are matured (broken) reticulocytes without the net structure and ribosomal DNA, which themselves are matured (broken) normoblasts that have lost their nucleus.
So basically they're the left over plasma membrane of a once-alive eukaryote cell, now filled with mostly hemoglobin, and little else.
(The above is not necessarily true for all animals, some have nuclei, but it's the case for mammals, and thus humans.)
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
32
down vote
accepted
When differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are taught in an introductory biology course, a generic prokaryotic cell and a generic eukaryotic cell are typically compared. Cells in a complex multicellular organism, like a human, are quite diverse. Human red blood cells are one example of a highly specialized cell with a mature form that is quite different from the typical eukaryotic cell. Keratinocytes in the epidermis are another example (see Ross Histology, Ch. 15). In both cases, these cells produce large amounts of a single protein, eventually, at their most mature stage, stopping protein synthesis, extruding their nuclei and most other organelles.
The absence of a nucleus or other organelles, however, does not necessarily make either of these cells more susceptible to antibacterial antibiotics. Antibiotics are targeted toward things that bacteria have (positive differences), rather than the absence of typical eukaryotic structures. Almost all antibacterial antibiotics have one of three targets (see Goodman and Gilman Chs. 48, 52-55):
The bacterial cell wall or membrane
protein synthetic machinery
specialized metabolites required by bacteria
There is (almost) no overlap between these structures in bacteria and structures in any of the diverse array of human cells. The one partial exception is a similarity between the mitochondrial and bacterial ribosome, that may, for example, be responsible for some of the toxicity of chloramphenicol (G&G Ch. 55).
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
32
down vote
accepted
When differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are taught in an introductory biology course, a generic prokaryotic cell and a generic eukaryotic cell are typically compared. Cells in a complex multicellular organism, like a human, are quite diverse. Human red blood cells are one example of a highly specialized cell with a mature form that is quite different from the typical eukaryotic cell. Keratinocytes in the epidermis are another example (see Ross Histology, Ch. 15). In both cases, these cells produce large amounts of a single protein, eventually, at their most mature stage, stopping protein synthesis, extruding their nuclei and most other organelles.
The absence of a nucleus or other organelles, however, does not necessarily make either of these cells more susceptible to antibacterial antibiotics. Antibiotics are targeted toward things that bacteria have (positive differences), rather than the absence of typical eukaryotic structures. Almost all antibacterial antibiotics have one of three targets (see Goodman and Gilman Chs. 48, 52-55):
The bacterial cell wall or membrane
protein synthetic machinery
specialized metabolites required by bacteria
There is (almost) no overlap between these structures in bacteria and structures in any of the diverse array of human cells. The one partial exception is a similarity between the mitochondrial and bacterial ribosome, that may, for example, be responsible for some of the toxicity of chloramphenicol (G&G Ch. 55).
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
32
down vote
accepted
up vote
32
down vote
accepted
When differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are taught in an introductory biology course, a generic prokaryotic cell and a generic eukaryotic cell are typically compared. Cells in a complex multicellular organism, like a human, are quite diverse. Human red blood cells are one example of a highly specialized cell with a mature form that is quite different from the typical eukaryotic cell. Keratinocytes in the epidermis are another example (see Ross Histology, Ch. 15). In both cases, these cells produce large amounts of a single protein, eventually, at their most mature stage, stopping protein synthesis, extruding their nuclei and most other organelles.
The absence of a nucleus or other organelles, however, does not necessarily make either of these cells more susceptible to antibacterial antibiotics. Antibiotics are targeted toward things that bacteria have (positive differences), rather than the absence of typical eukaryotic structures. Almost all antibacterial antibiotics have one of three targets (see Goodman and Gilman Chs. 48, 52-55):
The bacterial cell wall or membrane
protein synthetic machinery
specialized metabolites required by bacteria
There is (almost) no overlap between these structures in bacteria and structures in any of the diverse array of human cells. The one partial exception is a similarity between the mitochondrial and bacterial ribosome, that may, for example, be responsible for some of the toxicity of chloramphenicol (G&G Ch. 55).
When differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are taught in an introductory biology course, a generic prokaryotic cell and a generic eukaryotic cell are typically compared. Cells in a complex multicellular organism, like a human, are quite diverse. Human red blood cells are one example of a highly specialized cell with a mature form that is quite different from the typical eukaryotic cell. Keratinocytes in the epidermis are another example (see Ross Histology, Ch. 15). In both cases, these cells produce large amounts of a single protein, eventually, at their most mature stage, stopping protein synthesis, extruding their nuclei and most other organelles.
The absence of a nucleus or other organelles, however, does not necessarily make either of these cells more susceptible to antibacterial antibiotics. Antibiotics are targeted toward things that bacteria have (positive differences), rather than the absence of typical eukaryotic structures. Almost all antibacterial antibiotics have one of three targets (see Goodman and Gilman Chs. 48, 52-55):
The bacterial cell wall or membrane
protein synthetic machinery
specialized metabolites required by bacteria
There is (almost) no overlap between these structures in bacteria and structures in any of the diverse array of human cells. The one partial exception is a similarity between the mitochondrial and bacterial ribosome, that may, for example, be responsible for some of the toxicity of chloramphenicol (G&G Ch. 55).
edited 14 hours ago
answered yesterday
De Novo
4,072829
4,072829
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
1
1
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
@silverfish yep. Thanks!
â De Novo
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
 |Â
show 10 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
 |Â
show 10 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.
No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.
answered 2 days ago
swbarnes2
3,295711
3,295711
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
 |Â
show 10 more comments
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
4
4
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
It's also hard to even call them living things, since they do not do most of what living organisms do. They are just half dead components with a single purpose: zombies so to speak.
â Daniel Goldman
2 days ago
1
1
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
@DanielGoldman thats not true. They consume organic matter, they reproduce, they have their own genetic instructions that produces proteins. What don't bacteria do that you would not consider them alive?
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
1
1
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
@JamieClinton he meant mature RBCs, which don't do what most living organisms do. They fulfill more than a single purpose, but otherwise, he's exactly correct. Once they reach maturity, they don't synthesize any more protein and can't reproduce.
â De Novo
yesterday
2
2
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
â Jamie Clinton
yesterday
2
2
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
@swbarnes2 That's not at all what I'm saying. Many attempts to define life start by considering reproduction. I was pointing out the problem with that, exactly because it is ridiculous and disgusting to consider an infertile individual to be a non living thing. I'm honestly shocked that someone would somehow interpret my comment as the converse (because these people are useless garbage, we can safely say that's a good way to classify cells). How would anyone think that?
â De Novo
20 hours ago
 |Â
show 10 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
No, they are matured (broken) reticulocytes without the net structure and ribosomal DNA, which themselves are matured (broken) normoblasts that have lost their nucleus.
So basically they're the left over plasma membrane of a once-alive eukaryote cell, now filled with mostly hemoglobin, and little else.
(The above is not necessarily true for all animals, some have nuclei, but it's the case for mammals, and thus humans.)
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
No, they are matured (broken) reticulocytes without the net structure and ribosomal DNA, which themselves are matured (broken) normoblasts that have lost their nucleus.
So basically they're the left over plasma membrane of a once-alive eukaryote cell, now filled with mostly hemoglobin, and little else.
(The above is not necessarily true for all animals, some have nuclei, but it's the case for mammals, and thus humans.)
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
No, they are matured (broken) reticulocytes without the net structure and ribosomal DNA, which themselves are matured (broken) normoblasts that have lost their nucleus.
So basically they're the left over plasma membrane of a once-alive eukaryote cell, now filled with mostly hemoglobin, and little else.
(The above is not necessarily true for all animals, some have nuclei, but it's the case for mammals, and thus humans.)
No, they are matured (broken) reticulocytes without the net structure and ribosomal DNA, which themselves are matured (broken) normoblasts that have lost their nucleus.
So basically they're the left over plasma membrane of a once-alive eukaryote cell, now filled with mostly hemoglobin, and little else.
(The above is not necessarily true for all animals, some have nuclei, but it's the case for mammals, and thus humans.)
answered yesterday
Damon
1291
1291
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
Erythrocytes have very complex metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis. It's not fair to say that they are "once-alive, filled with hemoglobin and little else" considering they are still living cells.
â forest
12 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f76461%2fare-red-blood-cells-prokaryotic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password