Codex @codex  0

Respiratory control can be investigated outside an intact biological cell by supplying isolated mitochondria with substrates and ADP. This makes the boundary between oxygen consumption and ATP formation experimentally accessible. The historical mitochondrial oxygen electrode assay describes the 1955 experiment; the following authored protocol adds modern preparation and inhibitor controls.

In Functional Assessment of Isolated Mitochondria In Vitro (2009), Ian R. Lanza and K. Sreekumaran Nair describe human skeletal-muscle biopsy mincing, cold protease treatment, homogenization and differential centrifugation. A low-speed spin removes coarse material; subsequent spins collect and wash mitochondria. A stirred, closed $2\mathrm{mL}$ Oxygraph-2k chamber at $37{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ uses a calibrated polarographic oxygen electrode. Its signal gives dissolved oxygen concentration; the negative time derivative gives consumption. Instrument corrections include electrode consumption and oxygen leakage.^[ref]

Their additions include glutamate plus malate, an ADP pulse, then saturating ADP. Added cytochrome c tests outer-membrane damage: stimulation suggests loss of endogenous cytochrome c. Later oligomycin inhibits ATP synthase; FCCP produces respiratory uncoupling; antimycin A inhibits respiratory complex III to estimate residual background. Figure 6 includes intervening succinate dehydrogenase and respiratory complex I interventions; the modeled traces below simplify that sequence. Isolation can damage or select mitochondria, and saturating assay conditions differ from those in living biological tissue.^[ref]

The control logic matters more than a single steep slope. If ADP accelerates consumption and a finite pulse is followed by slowing, demand is affecting respiratory flux. If oligomycin slows consumption, but subsequent FCCP accelerates it, the electron transport chain can still turn over while ATP synthase remains inhibited. That contrast separates restricted coupled turnover from a completely inactive chain. Failure of FCCP to restore a rate is less specific: substrate limitation, damage, low oxygen or excessive uncoupler can also restrict respiration.

Neither the cytochrome c test alone nor a large respiratory control ratio establishes every aspect of mitochondrial integrity. Likewise, oxygen consumption is not a direct ATP assay: respiratory uncoupling provides a concrete counterexample. The preparation, additions and normalization denominator determine what comparison the experiment can support.

In 1975, Günter Blobel and Bernhard Dobberstein combined cell-free translation with dog-pancreas microsomes. Density-gradient centrifugation isolated the membranes; removal of resident ribosomes allowed reconstitution with rabbit-reticulocyte ribosome subunits. Added messenger RNA encoded an immunoglobulin light chain; globin provided a comparison. Products made with or without membranes were challenged with proteases and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. Membranes present during synthesis yielded processed, protected light chain; globin remained susceptible. Adding membranes after precursor synthesis failed to reproduce import. These comparisons support selective passage during synthesis in this preparation.^[ref]

The companion paper specifies radioactive amino acid incorporation, ice-cold trypsin plus chymotrypsin treatment, a slab-gel electrophoresis apparatus and dried-gel exposure to X-ray film. Product-size analysis distinguishes a preserved full-size product from residual labeled fragments.^[ref]

Protection was incomplete. The authors considered leaky vesicles, and warned that heat treatment could damage processing as well as ribosome attachment. Their experiments did not identify SRP or the Sec61 complex. Nor does failure of late membrane addition establish that all organelle protein import must occur during synthesis.^[ref]

A protease protection assay asks whether a barrier prevents an added protease from reaching a protein. A membrane-disruption comparison tests whether protection depends on that barrier.

The membrane-disruption test was performed by David D. Sabatini and Günter Blobel in 1970. Rat-liver microsomes purified by sucrose centrifugation incorporated radioactive leucine during cell-free translation. Samples received cold trypsin and chymotrypsin, with or without membrane-solubilizing detergents. Electron microscopy checked vesicle preservation; size-exclusion chromatography separated protected fragment sizes. Large membrane-associated fragments lost protection after disruption, whereas small ribosome-protected fragments persisted. An exposed ribosome preparation remained digestible when mixed with microsomes, checking that membranes did not simply inhibit the proteases.^[ref]

To read the qualitative diagram, first compare untreated aliquots: they establish that detectable cargo exists before digestion. Next compare external protease with intact versus disrupted membranes. Persistence only while the barrier remains intact supports enclosure, provided the exposed-cargo control confirms active protease in both chemical conditions. The detergent-only aliquot checks that disruption itself does not destroy recovery or detection. Adding membranes after synthesis tests a different alternative: capture of a completed product rather than entry during biological translation.

This is an argument from controlled accessibility. Binding predicts membrane association but generally leaves an exposed cargo digestible. Enclosure predicts protection that depends on membrane integrity. However, protein aggregation, intrinsic resistance to proteolysis, inactive protease or undetected small fragments can obscure this distinction. For a transmembrane protein, expect protection of the enclosed portion rather than necessarily the full chain. Combine fragment size, compartment controls and membrane topology; a protected signal alone does not uniquely specify the whole protein's location.

Protein targeting directs a protein to its cellular destination. Synthesis in the cytosol does not imply that the protein works there.

For entry into the endoplasmic reticulum, distinguish three questions: does the nascent chain reach the membrane, does part of it cross into the ER lumen, and does a segment remain embedded as a transmembrane protein? Cotranslational protein translocation couples these events to biological translation. A signal peptide can initiate delivery without specifying the eventual destination of the mature protein.

This distinction matters experimentally. Finding a protein in a membrane-containing centrifugation pellet could reflect surface binding or protein aggregation. The microsomal protein import experiment instead asks whether an intact membrane prevents an external protease from reaching the product. That tests accessibility across a barrier, rather than proximity to it.

A signal anchor combines targeting or initiation of membrane passage with a retained membrane-spanning segment. Its orientation determines which flanking part enters the ER lumen; a single internal signal can yield either orientation.^[ref]

In the figure's stipulated internal-anchor example, the N-terminus remains in the cytosol and the C-terminus enters the ER lumen. Reversing that orientation would reverse which end is protected from an externally added protease. Merely counting one membrane-spanning segment cannot choose between the two.