Beware, here there be tables!
The numbers have changed a lot since I last did this, so I decided it was time for an update.
Note: this assumes that cells are continually moving, ATP costs are mostly halved otherwise.
@ normal osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 3 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
---|---|---|---|---|
ATP consumption | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
ATP production | 8 | 9 | 7.98 | 18.27 |
Nett ATP production | 0 | 3 | 5.98 | 14.27 |
Glucose cost | 0.024 | 0.036 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
ATP production/glucose | 333.3333333 | 250 | 249.375 | 435 |
Nett ATP production/glucose | 0 | 83.33333333 | 186.875 | 339.7619048 |
Storage | - | 3 | 0.5 | 1 |
Size | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
MP cost | - | 66 | 45 | 45 |
@ -10% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 3 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
---|---|---|---|---|
ATP consumption | 7.6 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 3.8 |
ATP production | 8 | 9 | 7.98 | 18.27 |
Nett ATP production | 0.4 | 3.3 | 6.08 | 14.47 |
Glucose cost | 0.024 | 0.036 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
ATP production/glucose | 333.3333333 | 250 | 249.375 | 435 |
Nett ATP production/glucose | 16.66666667 | 91.66666667 | 190 | 344.5238095 |
@ -20% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 3 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
---|---|---|---|---|
ATP consumption | 7.2 | 5.4 | 1.8 | 3.6 |
ATP production | 8 | 9 | 7.98 | 18.27 |
Nett ATP production | 0.8 | 3.6 | 6.18 | 14.67 |
Glucose cost | 0.024 | 0.036 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
ATP production/glucose | 333.3333333 | 250 | 249.375 | 435 |
Nett ATP production/glucose | 33.33333333 | 100 | 193.125 | 349.2857143 |
@ -40% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 3 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
---|---|---|---|---|
ATP consumption | 6.4 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
ATP production | 8 | 9 | 7.98 | 18.27 |
Nett ATP production | 1.6 | 4.2 | 6.38 | 15.07 |
Glucose cost | 0.024 | 0.036 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
ATP production/glucose | 333.3333333 | 250 | 249.375 | 435 |
Nett ATP production/glucose | 66.66666667 | 116.6666667 | 199.375 | 358.8095238 |
Observations:
-
Unlike before, the glycolysis process around random prokaryote structures is actually more glucose-efficient than both cytosol and metabolosomes. Of course, when taking the osmoregulation and movement cost into account, they normally produce nett 0 ATP. However, at -40% osmoregulation cost, placing something like a thylakoid just for the ATP production is now a little over half as glucose-efficient as cytoplasm. (Though the total amount of nett ATP production is still much lower) Getting rid of your prokaryote structures as soon as possible now seems less urgent.
-
While mitochondria are still the most glucose-efficient, the increase in glucose consumption means the gap is much smaller. I’d still recommend replacing your metabolosomes and cytoplasm with mitochondria, but the pressure is lower now.
-
Cytoplasm glycolysis is just as glucose efficient as metabolosome respiration right now. The metabolosome only ends up with a much higher glucose efficiency because of the osmoregulation and movement costs. Even with -40% osmoregulation cost the gap is still quite significant though. (Of course, you also need 4-6x as much cytosol to get the same nett ATP production depending on your membrane)