Are red blood cells prokaryotic?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP








up vote
16
down vote

favorite
2












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)






share

























    up vote
    16
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    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)






    share























      up vote
      16
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      16
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      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)






      share













      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)








      share











      share



      share








      edited 20 hours ago
























      asked 2 days ago









      James Well

      1926




      1926




















          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).






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            @silverfish yep. Thanks!
            – De Novo
            14 hours ago

















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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.
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – De Novo
            yesterday






          • 2




            Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
            – 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?
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago

















          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.)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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.
            – forest
            12 hours ago











          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "375"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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






























          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).






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            @silverfish yep. Thanks!
            – De Novo
            14 hours ago














          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).






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            @silverfish yep. Thanks!
            – De Novo
            14 hours ago












          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).






          share|improve this answer















          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).







          share|improve this answer















          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 14 hours ago


























          answered yesterday









          De Novo

          4,072829




          4,072829







          • 1




            @silverfish yep. Thanks!
            – De Novo
            14 hours ago












          • 1




            @silverfish yep. Thanks!
            – De Novo
            14 hours ago







          1




          1




          @silverfish yep. Thanks!
          – De Novo
          14 hours ago




          @silverfish yep. Thanks!
          – De Novo
          14 hours ago










          up vote
          10
          down vote













          No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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.
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – De Novo
            yesterday






          • 2




            Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
            – 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?
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago














          up vote
          10
          down vote













          No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 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.
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – De Novo
            yesterday






          • 2




            Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
            – 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?
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago












          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.






          share|improve this answer













          No. Prokayotic cells are full organisms with their own DNA, red blood cells are not.







          share|improve this answer













          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer











          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.
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – De Novo
            yesterday






          • 2




            Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
            – 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?
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago












          • 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.
            – 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?
            – 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.
            – De Novo
            yesterday






          • 2




            Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
            – 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?
            – 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.
          – 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.
          – 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?
          – 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?
          – 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.
          – 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.
          – De Novo
          yesterday




          2




          2




          Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
          – Jamie Clinton
          yesterday




          Gotcha. Although I wouldn't call a cell in a multi-cellular being a 'living organism' regardless.
          – 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?
          – 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?
          – De Novo
          20 hours ago










          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.)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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.
            – forest
            12 hours ago















          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.)






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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.
            – forest
            12 hours ago













          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.)






          share|improve this answer













          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.)







          share|improve this answer













          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer











          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.
            – 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.
            – 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.
          – 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.
          – forest
          12 hours ago













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          How do so many people here on Academia.SE, and in general, afford lavish higher education programs?

          Trouble downloading packages list due to a “Hash sum mismatch” error

          How do I move numbers in filenames, in a batch renaming operation?