Codex @codex  0

Energy flow tracks energy entering an ecosystem, passing through organisms and leaving its boundary. To see its quantitative effect, assume net production at one trophic level is $P_1=1000\mathrm{kJ}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}\mathrm{da}{\mathrm{y}}^{-1}$ and assume a transfer efficiency $\epsilon =0.10$ at each of two successive steps. Here $P_i$ measures the energy incorporated into new living material per unit area per day, after that level's own cellular respiration; it is not a count of organisms or a standing stock. The joule supplies the energy unit, with $1\mathrm{kJ}=1000\mathrm{J}$.

Only $10/1000=0.01$, or one percent, of the initial production reaches level 3 in this toy food chain. The first step leaves $1000-100=900$ and the second $100-10=90$ outside the next level's new production. These differences can include uneaten material, wastes, and energy released as heat during cellular respiration; their separate amounts have not been assigned. Detritus can still carry energy to decomposers. The 10 percent efficiency is an assumption, not a universal law: transfer efficiencies vary with the organisms, food and conditions. The production ratio $P_{i+1}/P_i$ also differs from the fraction of an individual meal converted into growth. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 46.2: production and transfer efficiency.

The shrinking budget explains why supporting another trophic level requires enough production below it. It does not prove an exact maximum length for every food chain, particularly when a food web imports resources or has branching diets. Lindeman's 1942 paper grouped feeding relationships into trophic levels, compared transfers and cellular respiration, and emphasized the ecosystem as a unit connecting living and nonliving components. That viewpoint made different organisms comparable through a common energy budget. See Lindeman, The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology (1942).

Material recycling and energy flow describe different bookkeeping. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus can be reused through chemical reactions and transfers between organisms and their surroundings. Energy transferred as heat is conserved, but is no longer the same store of chemical energy available to a consumer; photosynthetic primary producers need continuing light input. A decomposer helps recycle material and also releases heat through metabolism. Thus loss from one feeding budget means transfer into other forms or routes, never destruction of energy. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 46.3: material cycles. Conservation of energy applies to the whole accounting.

A motivating experiment used isolated membranes from A-431 biological cells, which supplied abundant EGFR. Separate membrane aliquots were incubated at $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ with ATP carrying radioactive phosphorus in its terminal phosphate group, plus magnesium or manganese ions. Radioactivity in material recovered by chemical acid-induced precipitation supplied the readout. Adding EGF beforehand enhanced incorporation relative to the unstimulated preparation; this placed a ligand-dependent biochemical response in a cell-free membrane system.^[ref]

The follow-up comparisons separated increased addition from suppressed removal: phosphate removal was rapid but unaffected by EGF, and anti-EGF antibody reversed activation by removing the ligand. These observations support reversible regulation of membrane-associated protein kinase activity.^[ref] Total incorporation alone cannot identify which protein or amino acid residue received the label, prove intrinsic receptor catalysis, or predict an intact biological cell's response.

The same account records an instructive identification error: receptor phosphorylation was initially assigned to the wrong amino acid residue because released modified amino acids migrated together in the electrophoretic electric field. Reanalysis identified phosphotyrosine residues. Retained radioactivity is evidence about the assay's separation and detection, not unique chemical identity.^[ref]

The periodic table arranges chemical elements in increasing atomic number, across successive periodic table periods. Its columns are periodic groups, numbered 1–18. The layout places recurring outer electron configurations above one another, making similarities in chemical bonds and chemical reactions easier to recognize. Ordering is by proton count, not by mass; the mass number of a particular isotope does not determine its box. See the official IUPAC periodic table and numbering conventions.

For the first eighteen neutral chemical atoms in their ground states, a compact description counts Electrons in successive electron shells. Thus carbon has $(2,4)$, meaning two Electrons in the first electron shell and four in the second; the sum $2+4=6$ agrees with its atomic number. Sodium has $(2,8,1)$, whose sum is $11$. These are occupancy counts, not circular trajectories of Electrons.

Reading each row from left to right gives:

The counting outline is short: the occupied electron subshells in this range are $1s$, $2s$, $2p$, $3s$, and $3p$, filled in that order for these neutral ground states. Each $s$ electron subshell holds up to two Electrons and each $p$ electron subshell up to six, giving $2$, $2+6=8$, and $2+6=8$ along these three rows. This $2,8,8$ summary applies only through argon; it is not a general rule that each electron shell fills completely before the next begins, nor a claim that the third electron shell can hold only eight Electrons. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, electronic structure and electron configurations.

The recurring outer counts make the arrangement useful. Lithium and sodium each have one valence electron, whereas fluorine and chlorine each have seven valence electrons. Such similarities help anticipate chemical reactions, without making all properties identical throughout a periodic group. Helium is an instructive exception to an eight-Electron shortcut: its two Electrons complete the first electron shell, so it belongs above neon and argon in periodic group 18. Hydrogen shares column 1 with lithium and sodium but has its own distinct chemistry. See Flowers et al., Chemistry 2e, periodic-table organization.

A ribozyme is an RNA molecule whose folded structure provides catalysis of a chemical reaction. A protein enzyme builds its active site from an amino acid chain; a ribozyme builds a working active site from RNA, sometimes with metal ions and associated proteins. Base pairing can help recognize a substrate, but recognition alone does not establish catalysis: the RNA must promote chemical conversion. A passive messenger RNA template being read by a ribosome is not thereby a ribozyme. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes: Substrate Recognition, Catalytic Strategies, and Comparative Mechanistic Analysis, sections 1–3.

The surprise is that an information-bearing polymer can also perform chemistry. Examples include the self-splicing group I intron of Tetrahymena thermophila and the catalytic RNA component of bacterial RNase P, discussed below. The ribosome supplies an everyday example: its peptide bond-forming active site is made of ribosomal RNA, although the complete machine also contains proteins. Nissen and colleagues examined structures of a large ribosome subunit with substrate analogues and found RNA contacting those analogues at the catalytic centre. This supports an RNA active site, not a claim that isolated ribosomal RNA can carry out all of biological translation. See Nissen, Hansen, Ban, Moore and Steitz, The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289 (2000), 920–930.

For the Tetrahymena group I intron, RNA splicing removes the intron and joins its flanking exons. The first chemical step uses the free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group of an external guanosine to attack the phosphodiester bond at the $5^{\prime }$ splice junction. This releases the upstream exon with a free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and attaches the guanosine to the intron. That newly freed hydroxyl group then attacks the phosphodiester bond at the other splice junction, joining the exons and releasing the linear intron. Each step exchanges one backbone connection for another; it is not simply separation of base pairs. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, 1981: the phosphoester-transfer mechanism.

The motivating experiment began with an unexpected control. As Cech recounts, Zaug purified a ribosomal RNA precursor from Tetrahymena using a detergent and phenol extraction, then compared test tubes with and without added cell nucleus extract. Incubation in salts and nucleotides released the same amount of small intron RNA in both cases, detected by gel electrophoresis. Repetition made a missing ingredient or accidental omission less plausible. Activity also survived treatments intended to destroy proteins. Nevertheless, absence of added extract did not by itself exclude a tightly attached, resistant protein, or prove that the small RNA had been newly excised rather than released from an already processed complex. See Thomas R. Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 655–659: the unexpected control and alternative explanations.

An independent chemical readout addressed the latter problem. Cech mixed precursor RNA with phosphorus-32-labelled guanosine bearing three phosphate groups (GTP), and used gel electrophoresis followed by exposure to X-ray film to locate the label. Label appeared in the excised intron with magnesium present; it was absent when magnesium was omitted or labelled ATP replaced the labelled guanosine reagent. This experiment is described in Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 657–658: labelled-guanosine controls. The 1981 study established attachment through the guanosine $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and showed that guanosine without a triphosphate also supported excision: breaking down the added nucleotide to supply energy was unnecessary. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, In vitro splicing of the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena, Cell 27 (1981), 487–496: primary abstract. Separately, sequencing and terminal analysis found an extra $5^{\prime }$ guanosine absent from the corresponding DNA sequence. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA, Nucleic Acids Research 10 (1982), 2823–2838. Together, incorporation and sequence evidence support a new covalent bond, beyond a change in how RNA associates.

Kruger, Grabowski, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech's 1982 test removed dependence on a precursor purified from Tetrahymena. They cloned the intron and adjacent exons into a DNA template, made precursor RNA with purified bacterial RNA polymerase under conditions suppressing RNA splicing, and removed proteins by detergent–phenol extraction. Denaturing gel electrophoresis separated precursor species. Purified precursor was then incubated with the guanosine reagent, magnesium and salt; matched samples without this incubation supplied a precursor baseline. Their standard assay used $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium chloride, $0.1\mathrm{mM}$ of that guanosine reagent, $100\mathrm{mM}$ ammonium sulfate and a buffer solution at pH $7.5$, for $30$ minutes at temperature $37{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with specified variations in individual experiments. Gel electrophoresis and radioactive-film detection showed excised intron RNA; sequencing verified its $5^{\prime }$ junction. See Kruger et al., Self-Splicing RNA, Cell 31 (1982), 147–157, figures 3–4 and Experimental Procedures.

Excision alone could leave disconnected exons. To test joining, the authors paired labelled RNA with DNA spanning the joined-exon sequence, removed exposed RNA with enzymes, and separated the protected pieces by denaturing gel electrophoresis. Spliced samples yielded protected RNA long enough to span the junction. See Kruger et al., 1982, figure 6: independent evidence for exon ligation. The experimental logic matters: an intron-sized band identifies a candidate product, while sequence and junction assays test its chemical identity.

These controls support sufficiency of the prepared RNA under the assay conditions. They do not show that every RNA self-splices, or that proteins are dispensable inside a biological cell. Many group I introns use proteins to help attain an active fold. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes, section 6: protein facilitation. Nor does a failed assay necessarily identify an inactive nucleotide sequence: unsuitable ions, pH, or temperature can prevent a working active site from forming.

The distinction between self-processing and repeated use became especially clear with bacterial RNase P. In 1983 Guerrier-Takada, Gardiner, Marsh, Pace and Altman separated the RNA and protein components of RNase P from two bacteria. Purified RNA cleaved precursor transfer RNA under conditions containing $60\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions, or $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions plus $1\mathrm{mM}$ spermidine. The protein components alone had no catalytic activity. At $5$–$10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium without spermidine, both components were needed. Thus the comparison demonstrated an RNA catalyst while also explaining why protein assistance could matter under other conditions. RNase P produces the mature $5^{\prime }$ end of transfer RNA by removing its leader; it acts on a separate substrate and can be used again. See Guerrier-Takada et al., The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme, Cell 35 (1983), 849–857: primary abstract.

Self-splicing demonstrates RNA chemistry, but one precursor completing one rearrangement is not yet evidence for catalytic turnover: repeated conversion of separate substrates by a regenerated catalyst. The self-splicing precursor changes its own connectivity and incorporates external guanosine. In 1986 Zaug and Cech showed that a shortened Tetrahymena intron RNA could cleave and rejoin separate short RNA substrates in a sequence-dependent reaction. This demonstrated an RNA enzyme acting beyond its own self-processing. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme, Science 231 (1986), 470–475: primary abstract.

Read the second figure as a counting argument. In a stipulated model, $A$ denotes unprocessed precursor and $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts completed self-processing events. Set $A(0)=R_0$, $P_{\mathrm{self}}(0)=0$ and $dA/d\tau =-A$. The exponential function solution gives $P_{\mathrm{self}}/R_0=1-e^{-\tau }$, never exceeding one. Here guanosine and other necessary reagents are taken to be available in excess; $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts events, not every separate reaction product molecule.

For a second stipulated model, let an unchanged ribozyme $R$ perform $R+S⟶R+P$ on a separate substrate $S$. Assume the effective law of mass action $dS/dt=-kRS$, no reverse reaction, no ribozyme loss and no inhibited or long-lived bound states. Set $R=R_0$, $S(0)=5R_0$, $P(0)=0$ and $\tau =k{R}_{0}t$. Then $S/R_0=5e^{-\tau }$ and $P/R_0=5(1-e^{-\tau })$, with $S+P=5R_0$. At $\tau =1$, self-processing gives about $0.632$ completed events per initial RNA, whereas the regenerated ribozyme gives about $3.161$ reaction product molecules per initial ribozyme. More than one substrate conversion per initial ribozyme, with appropriate background and identity controls, is evidence for turnover. Product accumulation below that threshold alone cannot distinguish a reusable catalyst from one-shot chemistry. These models illustrate that distinction; actual enzyme kinetics can include folding delays, binding, saturation and product release.