Glucose efficiency V2

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)

5 Likes

Thanks alot for doing this! It’s helped me find a new angle of approach in regards to balance.

I’m personally worried that the nucleus might be too easy to acquire right now (You only need 4 metabolosomes alone to get it). so I might look into decreasing the cost of flagella, and the production rates of metabolosomes (Should the mitochondria remain as they are I wonder?), which subsequently may result in the need of rebalancing all the periphery processes as well.

Of course, before I actually do such a thing, I would like to know what folks think of how the current balance feels.

2 Likes

I’m glad it’s of some use! Though of course this is just one aspect of the balance, since I’m not really focussing on size, speed or MP costs here. Neither am I taking into acoount that glycolysis doesn’t need oxygen, while the respiration options do.

Having said that…

Bonus round! Let’s compare chemosynthesizing proteins and chemoplasts! (assuming you’re using mitochondria, which you have access to if you’re comparing these two)

@ normal osmoregulation cost 3 chemo proteins Chemoplast
glucose production 0.09 0.08
H2S consumption 0.18 0.12
glucose production/ H2S 0.5 0.67
ATP consumption 6 4
glucose consumption 0.018 0.012
nett glucose production/H2S 0.482 0.655
Nett ATP production/H2S 163.88 222.51
Storage 1.5 1
Size 3 2
MP cost 135 45
@ normal osmoregulation cost 3 chemo proteins Chemoplast
glucose production 0.09 0.08
H2S consumption 0.18 0.12
glucose production/ H2S 0.5 0.67
ATP consumption 5.7 3.8
glucose consumption 0.017 0.011
nett glucose production/H2S 0.483 0.656
Nett ATP production/H2S 166.56 225.88
@ normal osmoregulation cost 3 chemo proteins Chemoplast
glucose production 0.09 0.08
H2S consumption 0.18 0.12
glucose production/ H2S 0.5 0.67
ATP consumption 5.4 3.6
glucose consumption 0.015 0.010
nett glucose production/H2S 0.485 0.656
Nett ATP production/H2S 169.24 229.26
@ normal osmoregulation cost 3 chemo proteins Chemoplast
glucose production 0.09 0.08
H2S consumption 0.18 0.12
glucose production/ H2S 0.5 0.67
ATP consumption 4.8 3.2
glucose consumption 0.013 0.009
nett glucose production/H2S 0.487 0.658
Nett ATP production/H2S 174.60 236.01

Clearly, as the eukaryote option the chemoplast is superior here, even without taking into account extra ATP costs from multiple chemo protein hexes. Though overall, osmoregulation costs seem to have less visible impact here, due to the large production numbers.

1 Like

yes

NO NOT AT ALL, MAKE THE NUCLEUS MORE ATP-NEEDED