AAMC Scored B/B Q21: Diffusion through cell membrane

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Gurby

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
5,648
The question asks for the most likely mechanism of entry into the cell of this molecule. The answer is simple diffusion.

It seems to me that this molecule would be on the large side for that? If not, is there any limit on size for hydrophobic molecules when passively diffusing through a phospholipid bilayer? I assume larger size means slower diffusion rate? Does the presence of a bunch of fused rings have any effect on this, vs a long saturated fatty acid?

Thanks!

Image 1.png

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think this would be slow to diffuse as well simply because of its size. There aren't any hard and fast rules for diffusion through a membrane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The question asks for the most likely mechanism of entry into the cell of this molecule. The answer is simple diffusion.

It seems to me that this molecule would be on the large side for that? If not, is there any limit on size for hydrophobic molecules when passively diffusing through a phospholipid bilayer? I assume larger size means slower diffusion rate? Does the presence of a bunch of fused rings have any effect on this, vs a long saturated fatty acid?

Thanks!

View attachment 203201
Hi @Gurby! Good question about speed, but that is not the Q the AAMC asked. They simply wanted to know considering the STRUCTURE, what is the most likely method by which this molecules (non-polar, very hydrophobic) might cross through the cell membrane. If they had offered facilitated diffusion, diffusion and simple diffusion as an answer choice there may be some cause for nit-picking on the part of the AAMC, but here the only other choices you are given are:

Active transport. Not necessary unless we knew that entering the cell meant going from low to high concentration, which according to the passage, is not the case. In addition, structure has little to do with the need for active vs. passive transport.

Receptor mediated endocytosis. This mechanism allows for specific molecules to be ingested by the cell. The specificity results from a receptor-ligand interaction. Receptors on the plasma membrane of the target tissue will specifically bind to ligands on the outside of the cell. An endocytotic process occurs and the ligand is ingested. There is no mention of ligands in the passage and the simple structure of STN makes this highly unlikely, though not impossible (the metabolism of cholesterol uses RME).

Ion channel. Easiest answer to eliminate as STN is no ion.

As you can see the AAMC will provide some tempting, some not so tempting answers. Your goal is to think like the AAMC and only answer the question they have asked. Sometimes that means eliminating all the unlikely or impossible answers, and going with the only remaining choice. They use phrases like most likely and best in order to avoid having to argue that choice C is impossible, which it is not technically true.

As for speed of diffusion vs. size, that is a relatively simple topic but it is not something the AAMC would ask unless they had you compare 2 molecules of differing size. That is just not how they test the sciences. I know that the surface area (SA) of the organism/cell is directly proportional to the rate of diffusion, so is the concentration difference (d[X]) while the distance the molecule will travel across the membrane is inversely proportional to diffusion rate.

Rate = SA x d[X] / d

You can also think of this in terms of thermodynamics, but on a much smaller scale than we are used to on the exam. You will go through some of this when to get to Pharma in med school but I will keep it MCAT level here.

In any given environment, there are several factors that impact a molecule's mobility: size of the molecule, viscosity of the surroundings, interactions between macromolecules and the specific type of transportation that is used by the molecule. Because diffusion relies on movement and movement relies on the size of the molecule, there is a direct relationship between molecular size and diffusion rate. Larger molecules necessitate larger amounts of energy to engage in the same level of activity as smaller molecules. If there is not sufficient energy to move a larger molecule, it resists the effects of diffusion and is unable to move from one area to the next. Increases in environmental heat or other extraneous factors also have an impact on the energy involved in the diffusion process and the rate at which a large molecule diffuses.

Hope this helps, good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
this question tripped me up too, and I still don't understand how something so large can pass through the membrane by simple diffusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
How else would it enter the cell?

Well out of the 4 answers, i narrowed it down to 2; simple diffusion, and receptor mediated. I put receptor mediator as i thought the carbonyl/amide group would act as the binding portion. I just thought only small molecules hydrophobic molecules can pass through with simple diffusion.
 
Well out of the 4 answers, i narrowed it down to 2; simple diffusion, and receptor mediated. I put receptor mediator as i thought the carbonyl/amide group would act as the binding portion. I just thought only small molecules hydrophobic molecules can pass through with simple diffusion.

Correct, those are the two important types of molecules that can pass through with simple diffusion, and this particular molecule happens to be very hydrophobic - look how many carbons and rings there are, there no way that kind of molecule is going to be well-tolerated by water. Compare it to cholesterol/steroid hormones, which have a bunch of carbons, 4 fused rings, and can enter and pass through membranes very readily due to their hydrophobicity.

As a side note, the receptor-mediated molecules are much more likely to look like certain metabolites that you may recognize (i.e. glucose), as well as proteins, neither of which this particular molecule happens to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Well out of the 4 answers, i narrowed it down to 2; simple diffusion, and receptor mediated. I put receptor mediator as i thought the carbonyl/amide group would act as the binding portion. I just thought only small molecules hydrophobic molecules can pass through with simple diffusion.
That's exactly how we've learned it in all of the biology classes I've taken as well.

I put RM as well for that very reason. Now that I think about it though, it makes sense. Although we learned that "small hydrophobic molecules" pass, we also did learn that steroid hormones do just enter the cell w/o transport and act intracellularly, so it follows that this molecule would do the same. Ugh.
 
Correct, those are the two important types of molecules that can pass through with simple diffusion, and this particular molecule happens to be very hydrophobic - look how many carbons and rings there are, there no way that kind of molecule is going to be well-tolerated by water. Compare it to cholesterol/steroid hormones, which have a bunch of carbons, 4 fused rings, and can enter and pass through membranes very readily due to their hydrophobicity.

It's actually polar.

You were right in your first post - I think you second guessed yourself or just mistyped the second time. Though, I should mention that you shouldn't compare the four fused rings of a steroid to this case because steroids have aliphatic rings whereas these are aromatic - which are much more inert and difficult to activate. I do agree that this molecule is hydrophobic though - most of it, anyway.
 
You were right in your first post - I think you second guessed yourself or just mistyped the second time. Though, I should mention that you shouldn't compare the four fused rings of a steroid to this case because steroids have aliphatic rings whereas these are aromatic - which are much more inert and difficult to activate. I do agree that this molecule is hydrophobic though - most of it, anyway.
I don't think that I contradicted myself, did I? The molecule in the OP is both polar and hydrophobic, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are certainly some net dipoles in this molecule, so even though its size/overall structure lead it to be quite hydrophobic, it's technically polar too, I believe. (I hope that my reasoning skills/understanding of basic chem haven't flown out the window out of some minor frustration with Prilozack's posts haha)

Good point about the aliphatic vs. aromatic rings by the way, I didn't consider that in my first post.

Edit: maybe amphipathic would have been a slightly more accurate/relevant term, but I just wanted to point out the technical error in Prilozack's post
 
I don't think that I contradicted myself, did I? The molecule in the OP is both polar and hydrophobic, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are certainly some net dipoles in this molecule, so even though its size/overall structure lead it to be quite hydrophobic, it's technically polar too, I believe. (I hope that my reasoning skills/understanding of basic chem haven't flown out the window out of some minor frustration with Prilozack's posts haha)

When we talk about a molecule, we generally refer to its overall polarity. So for instance, you wouldn't say that a fatty acid is polar because most of it is not and it acts like it's not. You could say that the carboxylic acid is polar while the fatty acyl tail is nonpolar and that would be the most accurate way of characterizing it. In this case, you have some polar functionalities but a lot of hydrocarbon as well.
 
When we talk about a molecule, we generally refer to its overall polarity. So for instance, you wouldn't say that a fatty acid is polar because most of it is not and it acts like it's not. You could say that the carboxylic acid is polar while the fatty acyl tail is nonpolar and that would be the most accurate way of characterizing it. In this case, you have some polar functionalities but a lot of hydrocarbon as well.
Right, we're on the same page conceptually, just semantics I guess.

By the way, thanks for coming back to this subforum even after you're done with the MCAT, it's very generous of you and much appreciated!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Right, we're on the same page conceptually, just semantics I guess.

By the way, thanks for coming back to this subforum even after you're done with the MCAT, it's very generous of you and much appreciated!

Woah, could you go over that again? How can the molecule be polar and hydrophobic? I'm confused because I thought it was non-polar.
 
Right, we're on the same page conceptually, just semantics I guess.

By the way, thanks for coming back to this subforum even after you're done with the MCAT, it's very generous of you and much appreciated!

Nevermind man, that was ridiculous of me to think it's polar. Damn I'm getting my terms mesesd up.
 
Top