SinJunior Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Question: What are the gross # and net number of ATP in every one molecule of glucose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well, do you know that "Gross" means overall, before losses... and "Net" means total amount left after losses... Total produced minus total used? So... how many ATP can there be maximum in a single glucose molecule? That's your gross. Then, how many ATP are used to get to that state? Subtract that from your gross and you have your net. So, for example... Let's say a single glucose molecule can produce 10 ATP max, but it takes 2 ATP to do so. Also, it "leaks" 1 ATP in the process, so it loses 3 total. This means gross is 10, and net is 7. Now, do you have enough information to move forward? Do you know the max number, and do you know how many are used/lost in production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipcarpio Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 There are 36 molecules of sugar(gluc0se) per ATP produced.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo,im wrong..sorry..36 molecules of atp per gluc0se Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 don't just give away the answer. this is part of the rules you agreed to when you signed up to these forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.syntax Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Question: What are the gross # and net number of ATP in every one molecule of glucose? Glucose can be combined with other molecules to create ATP but glucose itself does not contan any ATP. Proper wording is a useful skill to work on. Especially if you are going to be writing scientific papers and such. ...ds Edited September 15, 2009 by dr.syntax spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, if we talk about proper wording, glucose does not yield ATP by combining it with other molecules... To be precise, the yield varies with how the complete oxidation is conducted and how the created reduction equivalents are used for oxidative phosphorylation. The substrate level gain is easy to assess, however the oxidative phosphorylation is based on estimates as the ATP generation is based on the creation of a proton gradient to power the ATP synthetase. The often cited 36 (or even 38) ATP is likely a bit of an overestimation. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.syntax Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, if we talk about proper wording, glucose does not yield ATP by combining it with other molecules... To be precise, the yield varies with how the complete oxidation is conducted and how the created reduction equivalents are used for oxidative phosphorylation. The substrate level gain is easy to assess, however the oxidative phosphorylation is based on estimates as the ATP generation is based on the creation of a proton gradient to power the ATP synthetase. The often cited 36 (or even 38) ATP is likely a bit of an overestimation. it. And I could have worded it better. I would not have given such a thorough discription as you did. But I could have sujested something like : It would have been better to ask how many molecules of ATP can be derived from one molecule glucose ? But I realized that was likely to depend on variables I was unaware of. I did the best I could with my limited knowledge. ...Dr.Syntax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, in a way by trying to be vague you inadvertently made a false statement. Ie "combining" molecules usually would be a reference to anabolic pathways, which is the opposite to what is happening with glucose. It would be more correct if you had worded it as "breaking down"- both are not normally used, but for a layman they make somehow sense and are not really wrong. I just had to point that out as I was unable to pass up the irony in your post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.syntax Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, in a way by trying to be vague you inadvertently made a false statement. Ie "combining" molecules usually would be a reference to anabolic pathways, which is the opposite to what is happening with glucose. It would be more correct if you had worded it as "breaking down"- both are not normally used, but for a layman they make somehow sense and are not really wrong.I just had to point that out as I was unable to pass up the irony in your post I already acknowledged my poor choice of words. So now you wish to make me out to be a liar over this trivial posting of mine. ...ds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Dr.Syntax - Chillax, man. Charon implied no such thing. People at this site put a high priority on accuracy and precision. When somebody corrects you, it is not a personal attack, so you need to stop acting like it is. This comment is in reference to many of your other posts in other threads as well. If you state something that is not entirely accurate, you will be corrected. That's a good thing, as it helps you AND others to learn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yupp, precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now