> Cell sizes are not fixed, however, even within a single species. Cells often swell as they increase their production of proteins and metabolites in preparation for division. This is in line with biology’s only rule: namely, there are exceptions to every rule!
> Case in point: a giant bacterium called Thiomargarita magnifica can extend about one centimeter in length, so large that it can be seen by the naked eye. It does so by breaking the surface area-to-volume rule, filling between 65–80 percent of its internal volume with an empty vacuole. In other words, it pushes most of its molecules to the cell periphery, thus shortening diffusion distances.
There is also a captioned image of bubble algae in the post.
Those still seem kind of small? Why not the size of an mature olive tree for example? I'm guessing the article may answer this, haven't gotten that far yet.
I've recently gotten into microscopy as a hobby and comparing the relative size of microbes is really interesting. There are entire animals (tardigrades for one) which can be smaller than some single celled organisms.
There are even single celled organisms which will prey upon and eat multicellular animals.
I feel like keeping the amount of molecules the same within the simulation needs to be justified.
How would it look like if the average amount of molecule was the same across a um?
Nitpick maybe, but I don't think oocytes are the largest cells, it pretty much has to be some sort of neuron. A sensory neuron for eg. someplace in the foot will be almost as long as the person is tall, and even if the neuron is extremely thin, it's gotta beat the oocyte for volume.
Some back of the envelope math says this is true. A conservative estimate for the size of an alpha motor neuron axon is 10μm diameter and 1m long, which already puts it over an order of magnitude larger than the 4,000,000µm³ oocyte quoted in the article.
In addition to what mbauman said, hair follicles and the hair itself are not single-cell. I can't immediately find the composition and average cell size, but even a long and thick strand of hair is less than 2 orders of magnitude larger than the largest neurons. I doubt any individual hair cell is very large.
"The allocation of all metabolic resources to maintenance purposes limits the size of the smallest prokaryotes and largest unicellular eukaryotes, whereas an inability to meet the ever-increasing biosynthesis rates limits the largest prokaryotes and smallest unicellular eukaryotes. Metabolic constraints for larger eukaryotes are relieved by alternative reproductive strategies and multicellularity."
I never bought into the egg thing. There’s clearly a distinct cell in the center that’s going to divide and grow inside the egg. The egg itself isn’t undergoing mitosis.
I had to go look this up, as I had heard the egg thing my whole life and just accepted it.
It turns out the oocyte is the single cell inside the egg, which for birds is significantly larger than a typical cell. So in that respect, the cell in a bird egg is very large. However, compared to the egg itself, it's tiny. The yolk and whites in the egg are all to provide nutrients as it grows, if fertilized.
One of the fascinating things about biology I think is this - that if the cells of your body were the size of an egg, they'd be way, way too big and you'd probably die.
I don't know for sure here, but isn't the ostrich IN the egg a multicellular animal? I would assume the first point where the egg contains anything that will become the ostrich, mitosis is happening to make more ostrich cells. I'm assuming there's always cell walls and nucleuses every step of the way here, and the egg and ostrich are never just one big cell.
I could be off base here though, I'm really channeling grade 9 bio class from decades ago!
The trick is that the egg is a ball with one small cell (the ovum) that happens to have also a huge reservoir of food for the future ostrich. There is a moment when there is only once cell in the egg, just after the fussion of the ovum and the sperm cell.
edit: Huh. Actually not a bad read. It even mentions ' On Growth and Form' which is interesting, if outdated. There are more modern texts like 'Shapes', 'Flow', and 'Branches' by Philip J Ball.
Largest eukaryote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valonia_ventricosa
largest prokaryote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomargarita_namibiensis
> Case in point: a giant bacterium called Thiomargarita magnifica can extend about one centimeter in length, so large that it can be seen by the naked eye. It does so by breaking the surface area-to-volume rule, filling between 65–80 percent of its internal volume with an empty vacuole. In other words, it pushes most of its molecules to the cell periphery, thus shortening diffusion distances.
There is also a captioned image of bubble algae in the post.
There are even single celled organisms which will prey upon and eat multicellular animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolemma
[0] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/10/24/gravity-plays-role...
Yeah. That's probably it. Really, it probably is the right answer.
"The allocation of all metabolic resources to maintenance purposes limits the size of the smallest prokaryotes and largest unicellular eukaryotes, whereas an inability to meet the ever-increasing biosynthesis rates limits the largest prokaryotes and smallest unicellular eukaryotes. Metabolic constraints for larger eukaryotes are relieved by alternative reproductive strategies and multicellularity."
It turns out the oocyte is the single cell inside the egg, which for birds is significantly larger than a typical cell. So in that respect, the cell in a bird egg is very large. However, compared to the egg itself, it's tiny. The yolk and whites in the egg are all to provide nutrients as it grows, if fertilized.
From Wikipedia:
> The yolk is not living cell material like protoplasm, but largely passive material
I could be off base here though, I'm really channeling grade 9 bio class from decades ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valonia_ventricosa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetabularia
edit: Huh. Actually not a bad read. It even mentions ' On Growth and Form' which is interesting, if outdated. There are more modern texts like 'Shapes', 'Flow', and 'Branches' by Philip J Ball.