Glycolysis, a common pathway for all organisms?

[winnie bear]

---

Members do not see this ad.

How is it possible that all organisms do glycolysis when not all organisms are chemoorganotrophs or heterotrophs or both?

For this pathway to be one that all organisms posses, we're saying all organisms consume sugars as either carbon or energy source, but some organisms use inorganic molecules as their electron/energy source. Could someone explain?

 

[Paseo Del Norte]

As I understand, organisms such as lithotropes can produce organic molecules by reducing carbon dioxide, thus most organisms can use a form of glycolysis. However, the products of glycolysis may be used differently by these organisms than say a human.

 

[DoCt0rPeTe]

I think you may be confusing energy source and energy production.

Autotrophs- use light energy to fix carbon into sugar. Thus energy source is light. This source of energy is used to make food, which in turn can be used to drive metabolism. The light energy was used to drive production of food, and that energy got stored in the food. Thus, you can say that Glycolysis is a way to convert the energy stored within the bonds into useable energy.

However, they also undergo glycolysis to carry out other processes such as (ie/ in plants) fluid movement.


Even a cyanobacteria which undergoes photosynthesis to produce its own food using light energy will undergo glycolysis in order to produce energy for survival.

 

[winnie bear]

I think you may be confusing energy source and energy production.

Autotrophs- use light energy to fix carbon into sugar. Thus energy source is light. This source of energy is used to make food, which in turn can be used to drive metabolism. The light energy was used to drive production of food, and that energy got stored in the food. Thus, you can say that Glycolysis is a way to convert the energy stored within the bonds into useable energy.

However, they also undergo glycolysis to carry out other processes such as (ie/ in plants) fluid movement.


Even a cyanobacteria which undergoes photosynthesis to produce its own food using light energy will undergo glycolysis in order to produce energy for survival.

Good point about the autotrophs. I guess I wasn't sure if it's true to say ALL organisms are capable of performing glycolysis. And since glycolysis means literally breaking of the sugar, I was thinking there has to be some microorganism (at least prokaryotic ones) that doesn't use sugars at all, whether they produce them or metabolize them (aka. no sugars involved in their metabolic processes).

So, would it then follow based on your assertion that all organism may not consume sugar but have the ability to convert molecules into sugar which later would require the break down of it?

 

[DoCt0rPeTe]

winnie bear-

I think you are getting so hung up on extraneous details!

There probably is/are some organism(s) that don't use glycolysis. I don't know of any, but there probably is, even if it hasn't be discovered yet.

You mention that some organisms may use toxins- and I say why can't they use such inorganic molecules as energy to produce glucose, which then can be effectively metabolized by glycolysis?

I've never heard of a pathway that uses toxins to get energy- just one that will convert a molecule into a simpler molecule like glucose in order to send it thru a pathway in which the org. can extract energy from it.

 

[winnie bear]

As I understand, organisms such as lithotropes can produce organic molecules by reducing carbon dioxide, thus most organisms can use a form of glycolysis. However, the products of glycolysis may be used differently by these organisms than say a human.

Thanks for your feedback! So, essentially, you're also saying that although not all organisms consume organic molecules like sugars, but ALL organisms have the ability to produce them, and since they can make glucose, they should have the mechanism to reverse it (i.e. glycolysis)?

 

[DoCt0rPeTe]

Half correct.

If you don't consume them, you make them.

Plants make em, we eat em. 😀

 

[winnie bear]

winnie bear-

I think you are getting so hung up on extraneous details!

There probably is/are some organism(s) that don't use glycolysis. I don't know of any, but there probably is, even if it hasn't be discovered yet.

You mention that some organisms may use toxins- and I say why can't they use such inorganic molecules as energy to produce glucose, which then can be effectively metabolized by glycolysis?

I've never heard of a pathway that uses toxins to get energy- just one that will convert a molecule into a simpler molecule like glucose in order to send it thru a pathway in which the org. can extract energy from it.

Oh, I edited it coz I didn't know for sure if prokaryotes that metabolilize toxins like toluene and arsenic convert them into simple sugars.

I don't care to know more than I need to, but I just wanted to be clear on whether the answer on the quiz was right so I know if I encounter it again, I won't have any doubts. I really haven't fully put together the big picture on cellular respiration and its pathways. Knowing the process and understanding when it applies, are two different topics and the latter of the two I have yet to fully grasp.

Your explanations helped tremendously! Thank you!

 

[winnie bear]

Half correct.

If you don't consume them, you make them.

Plants make em, we eat em. 😀

😳). What through me off was the word, "all"....so I was likely, really? archaea too? I guess so! all means all🙄.

 

[DoCt0rPeTe]

all does mean all, but dont trust your resources 100 percent. there are mistakes here and there.

but just to confirm, here is a published paper on the unique glycolytic pway of archeabacteria.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1223704/

yes. i am a loser. lol

 

[winnie bear]

all does mean all, but dont trust your resources 100 percent. there are mistakes here and there.

but just to confirm, here is a published paper on the unique glycolytic pway of archeabacteria.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1223704/

yes. i am a loser. lol

That's awesome! Thanks! I only read the abstract and parts of 1st page but page 2 is kinda ugly...make me not wanna read on😳).