Beware, here there be tables.
So, I had the impression just from looking at the base numbers that having two hexes of cytoplasm might be more efficient than a metabolosome. However, I then realised that the increased osmorregulation and movement cost might push it in favour of the metabolosome. I decided to actually work it out in excel, with several different membranes:
| @ +10% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 2 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATP consumption | 8.4 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 4.2 |
| ATP production | 8 | 8 | 8.4 | 18.9 |
| Nett ATP production | -0.4 | 3.8 | 6.3 | 14.7 |
| Glucose cost | 0.096 | 0.024 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| ATP production/glucose | 83.33333333 | 333.3333333 | 262.5 | 900 |
| Nett ATP production/glucose | -4.166666667 | 158.3333333 | 196.875 | 700 |
| Storage | - | 8 | 1 | 2 |
| Size | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| MP cost | - | 44 | 45 | 45 |
| @ normal osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 2 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATP consumption | 8 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| ATP production | 8 | 8 | 8.4 | 18.9 |
| Nett ATP production | 0 | 4 | 6.4 | 14.9 |
| Glucose cost | 0.096 | 0.024 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| ATP production/glucose | 83.33333333 | 333.3333333 | 262.5 | 900 |
| Nett ATP production/glucose | 0 | 166.6666667 | 200 | 709.5238095 |
| @ -20% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 2 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATP consumption | 7.2 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 3.6 |
| ATP production | 8 | 8 | 8.4 | 18.9 |
| Nett ATP production | 0.8 | 4.4 | 6.6 | 15.3 |
| Glucose cost | 0.096 | 0.024 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| ATP production/glucose | 83.33333333 | 333.3333333 | 262.5 | 900 |
| Nett ATP production/glucose | 8.333333333 | 183.3333333 | 206.25 | 728.5714286 |
| @ -30% osmoregulation cost | 4 glycolysis | 2 cytoplasm | metabolosome | mitcohondrion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATP consumption | 6.8 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 3.4 |
| ATP production | 8 | 8 | 8.4 | 18.9 |
| Nett ATP production | 1.2 | 4.6 | 6.7 | 15.5 |
| Glucose cost | 0.096 | 0.024 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| ATP production/glucose | 83.33333333 | 333.3333333 | 262.5 | 900 |
| Nett ATP production/glucose | 12.5 | 191.6666667 | 209.375 | 738.0952381 |
As a bonus, I included the mitochondria and the glycolysis found in most prokaryote “protein structures”. For the base numbers here I used multiples for some organelles to make it easier to compare things like size and storage, it has no effect on the efficiency calculated.
Observations:
-
Metabolosomes win out over cytoplasm, even at -30% cost. However, the difference is much larger at higher osmoregulation costs. Always pick metabolosomes, unless you really want the size or storage.
-
I’m pretty sure everyone knew this already, but mitochondria are much more efficient, replace everything with them as soon as you can.
-
Obviously you’re not going to place thylakoids, etc. for the glycolysis. However, even disregarding the osmoregulation and movement cost, the efficiency is shockingly low. Another reason to replace those prokaryote proteins as soon as you can.