From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mitochondrion has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Physiology (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system.
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Why make Wikipedia useless?[edit]

Can someone create a simple version for people who want to understand mitochondria but aren't already extremely knowledgeable on the topic? (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would find the Simple English version more understandable. (There is a link to it in the lefthand column of the article page.) -R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

orsk vandalism[edit]

the article is full of orsk, which is a non word--- orsk biology? come on A71.163.238.230 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

Should the Book/Movie/Game Parasite Eve be mentioned anywhere here? I mean, I dont know the original japanese story, but the video game version basically has mitochondria as rapidly evolving antagonists who were waiting for technological defenselessness (in the form of immune suppressing drugs) to "take over." The most prominent example of which is causing people to catch on fire through massive, commanded heat release.

The story is silly and clearly not scientifically accurate, but never the less, it is a cultural reference to mitochondria. Considering the sillyness however, I figured it was a good idea to get community input before posting much more about it. The big reason I see to include it is because it is basically the only well known example of science fiction directly using mitochondria as an antagonist. Which is weird but unique. Parasite Eve 2 goes so far overboard and is about a much different set of things, so neednt be included (it wouldnt help anyone understand anything that wasnt in the game.) (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that the Wikipedia page discussing midi-chlorians is linked to the mitochondrion page as is A Wind in the Door. --IONTRANSP (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mitochondrion article needs a picture of a network of mitochondria[edit]

Have a look at ,say, an RK-13 cell at brought to you by Nikon. See the network of mitochondria? Totally different picture from what we've got here in Wikipedia, with that stupid graphic of an isolated fooball-shaped or pill-shaped thing that you see after fixing and staining for the electron microscope. We've had these in vivo pictures of mitochondria available for at least twenty years now!Richard8081 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I included a corresponding picture. Thanks for the suggestion. S.Y.M.B.I.O.N.T. (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this paragraph correct?[edit]

Regulation of Pyruvate Dehydrogenase

"The decreased intra-mitochondrial calcium concentration increases dehydrogenase activation and ATP synthesis. So in addition to lower ATP synthesis due to fatty acid oxidation, ATP synthesis is impaired by poor calcium signaling as well, causing cardiac problems for diabetics."

First, it is said that the ATP synthesis is increased, but then it is said that it is impaired. Will increased dehydrogenase activity increase or decrease ATP synthesis? - Bob Collowân (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should say "decreases dehydrogenase activation".
The cited article says: "Importantly, mitochondrial Ca2+ concentrations in diabetic hearts were in the range where modulation of dehydrogenase activation occurs, suggesting that decreased flux through Ca2+-sensitive dehydrogenases may indeed contribute to impaired ATP generation in these hearts."
I'm not sure that the mitochondrion page should discuss results from the article "Mitochondria in the diabetic heart". The article "Mitochondria in the diabetic heart" is not even cited at Mitochondrial disease. It might be best to simply link from this page to diabetic cardiomyopathy and make a page section there about the role of mitochondria. --IONTRANSP (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitochondria in "most" eukaryotes[edit]

Is there an example of an eukaryote that does not have mitochondria? If not, the word most can be removed from the lede. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Diplomonads as a group lack mitochondria ( Microsporidia also lack mitochondria ( and these have recently been shown to be fungi. There are few other amitochondrial protists. However, in all cases I am aware of, it has been shown that these are secondary loses of mitochondria, and not a primitive lack.Michaplot (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

All eukaryotes, even diplomonads etc., have mitochondria, at least as long as you define mitochondria as double membrane bounded organelles of bacterial descent. Only some "mitochondria" have completely lost their DNA ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:620:400:9:0:0:0:55 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I agree, if we are defining "mitochondria" as including both functional and vestigial or other related structures, then all eukaryotes have them--except one. I will add the ref and update the article.Michaplot (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Mitochondrial fission and Mitochondrial fusion[edit]

I propose that Mitochondrial fission and Mitochondrial fusion be merged into Mitochondria, maybe into a new section titled Fission and fusion. The fusion article is just a three-sentence stub, and the fission article is not much bigger and relies on primary sources exclusively. So there would be only little content to integrate into the main article. I am not sure on where to best place the information, though. As a subsection to Structure, or rather under Replication and Inheritance?--Biologos (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Great ! How about adding a sub-section in Replication and Inheritance as fusion and fission both contribute to the respective section ? Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Since fission and fusion are closely related processes, I agree that the two articles should be merged. However, the main article on mitochondria is already quite extensive, and the fusion article has grown quite a bit since the merger was proposed. I think it makes more sense to merge the two into a common article and just create a small section on this topic in the main mitochondria article. --Shinryuu (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of mitochondria[edit]

Evidently a user and an IP disagree with me on how to pronounce the word "mitochondrion". I think it's pronounced /ˌmaɪtoʊˈkɒndʒɹi.ɪn/ (with a "j" sound where "dri" is, apparently they think its pronounced /ˌmaɪtoʊˈkɒndɹi.ɪn/ with just a 'da' and 're' sound (/dɹ/). Second thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Error in Mitochondrion mini.svg[edit]

In Point 3.12 it says "Cristal Membrane" but it is supposed to be cristae membrane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I removed the figure for the time being. I am not sure whether it should be re-added after correction, since we have enough other diagrams of mitochondria in the article.--Biologos (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, "cristal" seems to be used as the adjective for "cristae", it is quite widespread in the literature. I will undo my change.--Biologos (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this so very dry?[edit]

I wonder if this page might do a little more to explain the pivotal role Mitochondria played in the evolution of life? Perhaps a short paragraph including a link to Mitochondrial Eve might do it. I think this might satisfy our friend who made this comment

(Please excuse the bad link, I rarely participate, hopefully some robot will tidy that up for me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryfw (talkcontribs) 21:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It would also be nice if Lynn Sagan/Margulis would get more credit than to be described as someone who 'popularized' endosymbiosis and the origin of mitochondria. It's her theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Stages of mitochondrial fission and fusion should be described with indication of the proteins and enzymes involved at each step. At present the fission article provides unstructured info, which is of little help. (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)BS

No mention of mitochondrial decay[edit]

Mitochondrial decay redirects to this article, which however does not define or even mention the term. Could someone familiar with the concept please either say a word or two about it here, or change the redirect to an article in its own right? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please explain cryptic statement[edit]

In the 2nd paragraph under History, it's stated that "one oxygen atom can form two adenosine triphosphate molecules". Please explain how one oxygen atom can form anything other than one oxygen atom. Login54321 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

When you look at the adenosine triphosphate molecule, there are several atoms of oxygen within it. When you see it written that "one oxygen atom can form two adenosine triphosphate molecules", it just means that the bond between two molecules can be formed by one atom common to both, in this case oxygen. Hope this helps! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Login54321, I've revised the sentence in the article; does it make sense now? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Since the major function of mitochondria is to provide ATP for the host eukaryotic cell, it would be useful to include a sentence or two on how ATP is transported through each of the two membranes; and how the breakdown products ADP and phosphate are transported back in. Whether this is by diffusion through porins or some more active channel, I regret I don't know. Thanks Jerry (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, IP 78+ – it looks as if the outward transfer is described fairly well in the Function section as a primary/direct active transport; however, the return trip of ADP and phosphate appears to need a more detailed description. Not sure myself whether that is also by an active channel or something else. A look at the drawing near the top of the article shows that there are porins in the outer membrane that probably allow them in, but that's just a guess. Expert advice from one or both of the WikiProjects, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Physiology, would be helpful. – Paine  23:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have discovered that most of this question is answered in the article titled :ATP–ADP_translocase:, and I think it would be appropriate to include a reference to this page. Perhaps a sentence at the end of the paragraph headed Energy Conversion, such as:

   "The ATP is transfered across the inner membrane by a specific translocase :ref to ATP–ADP_translocase:, and across the outer membrane via porins. The ADP returns via the same route."

Thanks Jerry (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, messed up edit. Jerry

Yes check.svg Done – Paine  15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


There is a section "History" and a section "Origin". Though both sections are distinct, they have some relationship, mainly the rendering of scientific discoveries, but they are located at very distant places. My proposal is to relocate the section Origin after the section History. --Auró (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Auró (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Replication and inheritence[edit]

The following section does not parse well, and I am struggling greatly to understand what it means, it should be rewritten.

There is a recent suggestion that mitochondria that shorten male lifespan stay in the system because they are inherited only through the mother. By contrast, natural selection weeds out mitochondria that reduce female survival as such mitochondria are less likely to be passed on to the next generation. Therefore, it is suggested that human females and female animals tend to live longer than males. The authors claim that this is a partial explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Request clarification on most eukaryotes having mitochondria[edit]

I added {{Clarify}} to the Organization and distribution section with reason "Talk 2013 claimed all eukaryotes have at least remnant mitochondria; but recent Anna Karnkowska paper claims until recently all had some remnant".

Up until now the article was claiming most eukaryotes had mitochondria, citing the 2001 Upcroft paper ([1]) which has "Giardia duodenalis, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Entamoeba histolytica ... All three organisms lack mitochondria".

However, the recent paper "A Eukaryote without a Mitochondrial Organelle" [2] has "The presence of mitochondria and related organelles in every studied eukaryote supports the view that mitochondria are essential cellular components. ... Monocercomonoides ... This is the first example of a eukaryote lacking any form of a mitochondrion,".

Apparently it was accepted knowledge that some form of mitochodria were present in all eukaryotes (maybe after 2001?).

Could better informed editors look at this and appropriately modify the citation used, maybe with an explanatory note on what a mitochondrial remnant means?

-84user (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I do not think that the sentence "Mitochondria are found in nearly all eukaryotes" needs clarification because of this. If a section on secondary loss of mitochondria in evolution were added, this new paper would certainly add useful information to this.--Biologos (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2017[edit]


Mohammad Hijjawi (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 05:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)