Talk:Bioenergetics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheimanj. Peer reviewers: RogerHaverstein.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This page was hijacked by disruptive editors including User:Sadi Carnot (see the discussion at Talk:Biological thermodynamics). "Sadi Carnot" has been systematically adding disruptive edits to Wikipedia over a long period of time. User:Sadi Carnot created bogus articles containing original research and many links to the editor's personal website and self-published work on pseudoscientific theories. Starting with pages such as Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, the bogus editing is in the process of being fully discovered and removed from Wikipedia. "Sadi Carnot" also had another account: User:Wavesmikey. Scientific bioenergetics as described in the original and current versions of the article is the subject of tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. Bioenergetic analysis is a fringe subject without support from reliable sources. --JWSchmidt 04:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This page looks like it's ready for a lot of work. Any objections? 96.54.32.44 (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What Kind of Energy?
This article, and Wikipedia in general, is as shy as to naming the particular kind of energy, as a channelled new-age grand master. Vague mentions of "fire," calorimetric bomb, and oxidation remind me of the 1890's books I've read. Can someone knowledgeable, and hopefully not too strongly associated with the pinheaded mainstream, provide an answer? 67.206.163.13 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This "Bioenergetics" page needs a rewrite
As it now stands, anyone reading the "Bioenergetics" page without previous knowledge of the topic will only be confused. (See previous talker's frustration.) A few weeks ago I began adding a new section, "Gibbs Free Energy." But it got bogged down. Then I realized the whole Wiki article needed to be rewritten. Unfortunately, I lack the time (and energy ;) so today I removed my section since, without a total rewrite, my contribution just added to the confusion. Aside from a few minor changes, I've left the page in all its orginal glory.

Please somebody!?! This topic is one of the most essential and wonderful in biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelove (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

More citations are needed for statements made and other comments
The article as a whole lacks citations making each subtopic covered vague.

The first three paragraphs of the overview section keep mentioning breaking and making of bonds, however this seems undefined. Instead this section can define exergonic and endergonic reactions in relation to biogenetics and can link both the terms for the readers reference. The section can also give an example of a pathway the utilizes the two reactions in order to produce energy. In the context that it is being used the mention of the bomb caloriemeter seems irrelevant. However the bomb caloriemeter could have its own paragraph explaining how it is use as a quantitative study of bioenergetics or its have its own section as a method used to study bioenergetics which can also have other methods added in as well. In the sixth paragraph of the overview section should be cited as oxidative phosphorylation is a heavily studied pathway.

The section 'Types of reactions' will have sources that can be used as a citation since it is a well covered topic. As suggested before exergonic and endergonic should be mentioned in the overview for more clarity.

While cotransport, chemiosmotic theory and energy balance are mentioned these sections don't really tie in with bioenergetics unless the audience has background information about these topics. More can be written what these topics are and how they relate to bioenergetics.

Wikipedia articles about the thermodynamic cycle and combustion can also be mentioned in the See Also section Majumak (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

General Comments
The main overview should make a reference to the quantitative aspect of bioenergetics, bioenergetics focuses on quantifying energy transductions

Overview

In the living organisms section a clarification that cells get free energy from these processes which is transformed to ATP would be useful.

The bomb calorimeter mention seems irrelevant.

The sentence: "energy of hydration that results in energy release" is somewhat misleading. In most cases it is not just the hydrolysis that leads energy release, this leads to the release of heat.

This sentence: "An organism's stockpile of ATP is used as a battery to store energy in cells, for intermediate metabolism." is confusing. Could say "An organism's stockpile of ATP stores energy in cells and can be used for immediate metabolism".

Types of Reactions

Gibbs free energy should be explained or at least the page should be linked.

Cotransport It would be useful to state how this is related to bioenergetics. At this point it is not clear to a reader who does not know that much about bioenergetics. Anhill95 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments/Citations
The overview needs more citations and also seems very vague. I think this page needs to explain more about the kinds of energy processes than just generally stating energy. What type of energy do these living organisms obtain? The sentence "chemical bonds are broken and made as part of the exchange and transformation of energy." could be explained better. What types of energy? How?

Types of reactions: (exergonic, energonic, gibbs free energy could use links to their own wikipedia pages.)

Cotransport section could be improved upon a lot more. The section doesn't explain what it is, and should explain more how it is related to bioenergetics.

The sections, cotransport, chemiosmotic theory, energy balance, seem random to someone who doesn't know anything about bioenergetics. Each section needs a better explanation of what each one is and then why it is important for understanding bioenergetics.

Geowong (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

General...
Overview section could actually introduce the concept of free energy and/or "types of reactions" (albeit briefly, and link to other Wiki pages so people who want to read in more detail can) because someone reading this page has to first make it through that whole first paragraph /before/ they get they get to read about Gibbs free energy (and that overview paragraph is indeed lengthy).

I think the part about "slow combustion" in the overview is a helpful and interesting conceptualization, though I agree that the mention of the bomb calorimeter is unnecessary (a page to bomb calorimetry could be linked at the bottom with the other "See Also" pages, perhaps).

"Living organisms produce ATP from energy sources via oxidative phosphorylation. The terminal phosphate bonds of ATP are relatively weak..." --> mention the sources of energy explicitly. Also, you've linked us to wiki's ox. phosphor. page but a brief, concise sentence explaining what it is would be helpful.

Honestly the section on cotransport-- I'm sure Krane is happy knowing he's on Wiki but this section is irrelevant (unless an editor makes it clear why cotransport is a fundamental aspect (or consequence, perhaps) of bioenergetics).

Energy homeostasis is super important, I feel like this info could go into the overview instead of at the very bottom-- include this with paragraph on Gibbs free energy.

I agree with others that the overview is vague in areas; a new overview paragraph could potentially start with the concept of energy generally then relate that to biological systems. Then in a new paragraph, introduce Gibbs free energy/ types of energy, then you can discuss how biological systems acquire energy, how it gets used, etc etc. Might post more on this as I think about it more...

Last thing: It seems like the phrase "flux" (as in "energy flux") is common when talking about biochemical pathways that release energy; I think this phrase could be explained then used in this article, as energy flux is an important concept with respect to bioenergetic homeostasis.

Cheers y'all, happy editing~ Sheimanj (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This article could use some work
The article needs citations. There are barely any citations in the introduction. This would be a good article to contribute to since Bioenergetics is an important topic. The second paragraph of the Overview needs editing for clarity and organization. The Overview section is long and disorganized. The paragraphs seem disconnected from each other. Missing a few comma and punctuations that could make things easier to read. There are several grammatical edits that could be made throughout to improve the readability of this article.

The header at the beginning about bioenergetic analysis feels inappropriate and should be removed.

The Types of Reactions section can be expanded upon.The Cotransport section can be expanded to talk about how that is linked to bioenergetics. The later sections have very bold claim such as this and that discovery is the most important or major triumphs. I would suggest toning these down to "notable" or "important" discoveries.

Tomhoang18 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

General Comments and Concerns
The overview has extremely limited citations and needs more for almost every sentence. However, what is cited has active links to reputable, non-biased sources.

Types of reactions section has no citations, but needs them.

The cotransport section seems to have bias claiming a discovery was "the most important." Perhaps this is not appropriate. This section does not explain its relevance to the page as a whole nor what cotransport is. The citations are from peer-reviewed journals, however.

Chemiosmotic theory begins with "one of the major triumphs of bioenergetics," but would be more clear if it first described what it was. It has only one citation- if its for the whole paragraphs, perhaps it should be at the end. The citation is from Nature.

Energy balance is un-biased and has good citations.

Katiemcpherson (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)