为默本对有氧呼吸的解释辩护

K. Manoj
{"title":"为默本对有氧呼吸的解释辩护","authors":"K. Manoj","doi":"10.14748/BMR.V31.7713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The murburn explanation for aerobic respiration was first published at Biomedical Reviews in 2017. Thereafter, via various analytical, theoretical and experimental arguments/evidence published in respected portals over the last three years, my group’s works had highlighted the untenable nature of the “electron transport chain (ETC)-driven chemiosmotic rotary ATP synthesis (CRAS)” explicatory paradigm for aerobic respiration. We have also presented strong evidence and arguments supporting the new murburn model of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (mOxPhos). Overlooking the vast majority of our critical dissections, CRAS hypothesis is still advocated by some. Further, queries are posed on the evidence-based murburn explanation without any committed effort to understand the new proposals. Herein, I expose the false attributions made to our works, point out the general and particular flaws/lacunae in the critical attention murburn model received, revisit/dissect the arguments critique(s) floated to support the chemiosmotic proposal, answer the specific queries on murburn explanation and defend/consolidate our proposals for mOxPhos. The current scientific discourse is crucial for correcting major historical errors and finding/founding new concepts of the powering logic and biophysical chemistry of life. Biomed Rev 2020; 31: 135-148","PeriodicalId":8906,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In defense of the murburn explanation for aerobic respiration\",\"authors\":\"K. Manoj\",\"doi\":\"10.14748/BMR.V31.7713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The murburn explanation for aerobic respiration was first published at Biomedical Reviews in 2017. Thereafter, via various analytical, theoretical and experimental arguments/evidence published in respected portals over the last three years, my group’s works had highlighted the untenable nature of the “electron transport chain (ETC)-driven chemiosmotic rotary ATP synthesis (CRAS)” explicatory paradigm for aerobic respiration. We have also presented strong evidence and arguments supporting the new murburn model of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (mOxPhos). Overlooking the vast majority of our critical dissections, CRAS hypothesis is still advocated by some. Further, queries are posed on the evidence-based murburn explanation without any committed effort to understand the new proposals. Herein, I expose the false attributions made to our works, point out the general and particular flaws/lacunae in the critical attention murburn model received, revisit/dissect the arguments critique(s) floated to support the chemiosmotic proposal, answer the specific queries on murburn explanation and defend/consolidate our proposals for mOxPhos. The current scientific discourse is crucial for correcting major historical errors and finding/founding new concepts of the powering logic and biophysical chemistry of life. Biomed Rev 2020; 31: 135-148\",\"PeriodicalId\":8906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14748/BMR.V31.7713\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14748/BMR.V31.7713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

默本对有氧呼吸的解释于2017年首次发表在《生物医学评论》上。此后,通过在过去三年中发表在受人尊敬的门户网站上的各种分析,理论和实验论点/证据,我的小组的工作强调了“电子传递链(ETC)驱动的化学渗透旋转ATP合成(CRAS)”解释有氧呼吸的范式的不成立性质。我们还提出了强有力的证据和论据来支持线粒体氧化磷酸化(mOxPhos)的新murburn模型。忽略了我们绝大多数的批判性解剖,CRAS假说仍然被一些人所倡导。此外,在没有任何致力于理解新提议的情况下,对基于证据的默本解释提出了质疑。在此,我揭露了对我们的作品的错误归因,指出了murburn模型所受到的批评关注中的一般和特定的缺陷/漏洞,重新审视/剖析了支持化学渗透理论的论点,回答了关于murburn解释的具体问题,并捍卫/巩固了我们关于mOxPhos的建议。当前的科学话语对于纠正重大的历史错误和发现/建立生命的动力逻辑和生物物理化学的新概念至关重要。Biomed Rev 2020;31日:135 - 148
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In defense of the murburn explanation for aerobic respiration
The murburn explanation for aerobic respiration was first published at Biomedical Reviews in 2017. Thereafter, via various analytical, theoretical and experimental arguments/evidence published in respected portals over the last three years, my group’s works had highlighted the untenable nature of the “electron transport chain (ETC)-driven chemiosmotic rotary ATP synthesis (CRAS)” explicatory paradigm for aerobic respiration. We have also presented strong evidence and arguments supporting the new murburn model of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (mOxPhos). Overlooking the vast majority of our critical dissections, CRAS hypothesis is still advocated by some. Further, queries are posed on the evidence-based murburn explanation without any committed effort to understand the new proposals. Herein, I expose the false attributions made to our works, point out the general and particular flaws/lacunae in the critical attention murburn model received, revisit/dissect the arguments critique(s) floated to support the chemiosmotic proposal, answer the specific queries on murburn explanation and defend/consolidate our proposals for mOxPhos. The current scientific discourse is crucial for correcting major historical errors and finding/founding new concepts of the powering logic and biophysical chemistry of life. Biomed Rev 2020; 31: 135-148
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Role of NANOG in glioma malignancy development and potential as therapeutic target A sample copy of the textbook Principles of Cell and Tissue Biology In defense of the murburn explanation for aerobic respiration The great Geoffrey Burnstock: A passion for discovery and empathy On the new prospects in biology inspired by epigenetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1