11 comments

  • chasil5 hours ago
    Not all are?<p>Largest eukaryote:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Valonia_ventricosa" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Valonia_ventricosa</a><p>largest prokaryote:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thiomargarita_namibiensis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thiomargarita_namibiensis</a>
    • DaveSchmindel4 hours ago
      &gt; 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!<p>&gt; 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.<p>There is also a captioned image of bubble algae in the post.
      • cwmoore2 hours ago
        Interesting topology. How empty is the vacuole?
      • vasco1 hour ago
        &gt; This is in line with biology’s only rule: namely, there are exceptions to every rule!<p>Nice paradox
    • teravor1 hour ago
      <p><pre><code> &gt; The entire cell contains several cytoplasmic domains, with each domain having a nucleus and a few chloroplasts. </code></pre> it reinvented being multi-cellular
    • OrderlyTiamat3 hours ago
      relatedly, foraminifera are single cellular organisms that can grow up to 20 cm! <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Xenophyophorea" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Xenophyophorea</a>
    • ssivark3 hours ago
      Isn&#x27;t the ovum supposed to be a single cell? Eggs of various species can be substantially larger than this.
      • lmm37 minutes ago
        Yes. I remember reading that Ostrich eggs are the largest single cells (in terms of mass&#x2F;volume; Blue Whale nerve cells are longer).
    • acheron2 hours ago
      There’s also the one that almost ate the <i>Enterprise</i>. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Immunity_Syndrome_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Immunity_Syndrome_(Star_Tr...</a>
    • mr_toad3 hours ago
      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Xenophyophorea" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Xenophyophorea</a>
    • embedding-shape4 hours ago
      Those still seem kind of small? Why not the size of an mature olive tree for example? I&#x27;m guessing the article may answer this, haven&#x27;t gotten that far yet.
      • malfist3 hours ago
        When they invade your saltwater aquarium, you won&#x27;t think they&#x27;re small. They can get up just slightly larger than a marble
    • AgentMasterRace3 hours ago
      Exactly
    • MagicMoonlight4 hours ago
      [dead]
  • ablob2 hours ago
    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?
  • limbero4 hours ago
    Nitpick maybe, but I don&#x27;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&#x27;s gotta beat the oocyte for volume.
    • hatthew4 hours ago
      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.
      • NoMoreNicksLeft3 hours ago
        This almost feels like cheating. Why not count hair follicles with hair attached then?
        • mbauman3 hours ago
          That&#x27;s very different; hair doesn&#x27;t perform membrane transport along its length. The surface of an axon is critical to the cell&#x27;s functioning.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Axolemma" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Axolemma</a>
        • hatthew3 hours ago
          In addition to what mbauman said, hair follicles and the hair itself are not single-cell. I can&#x27;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.
          • gus_massa37 minutes ago
            I agree, except the Squid Gian Axon <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Squid_giant_axon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Squid_giant_axon</a> that can &quot;1mm diameter and almost 1m long&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk&#x2F;using-animals-in-scientific-research&#x2F;animal-research-species&#x2F;squid" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk&#x2F;using-animals...</a>
    • CrazyStat1 hour ago
      Giraffes neurons can be up to 15 feet long. Blue whales are speculated to have neurons up to 100 feet long, though they&#x27;ve never been directly observed (dissected).
  • kayo_202110304 hours ago
    &gt; A simplistic answer is that evolution has made each cell the size best suited to its function.<p>Yeah. That&#x27;s probably it. Really, it probably is the right answer.
    • fluoridation3 hours ago
      That just kicks the can forward one step. What parameters control the optimal size of a given cell?
      • teravor1 hour ago
        there is likely evolutionary pressure against large cell size (selfish genes; larger cell takes energy away from replication, provides more opportunity for infiltration by other genes, fewer gene backups in other cells, etc) while occupying a niche puts pressure to be a certain size. it lands somewhere in the middle.
    • taneq2 hours ago
      Why are things the way they are? Because it works better. Simple, really. :D
  • why_at2 hours ago
    I&#x27;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.<p>There are even single celled organisms which will prey upon and eat multicellular animals.
  • Terr_3 hours ago
    Reminds me of: &quot;Gravity plays a role in keeping cells small&quot; [0]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2013&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;gravity-plays-role-keeping-cells-small" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2013&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;gravity-plays-role...</a>
  • Imnimo4 hours ago
    This reminds me also of this paper: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.1115585109" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.1115585109</a><p>&quot;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.&quot;
  • socalgal24 hours ago
    Cells are small? compared to what? An ostrich egg is a single cell
    • bilsbie4 hours ago
      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.
      • al_borland3 hours ago
        I had to go look this up, as I had heard the egg thing my whole life and just accepted it.<p>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&#x27;s tiny. The yolk and whites in the egg are all to provide nutrients as it grows, if fertilized.
      • saulpw4 hours ago
        The yolk is an energy&#x2F;vitamin source, not a &#x27;cell&#x27;. The division happens outside the yolk.<p>From Wikipedia:<p>&gt; The yolk is not living cell material like protoplasm, but largely passive material
      • ErroneousBosh3 hours ago
        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&#x27;d be way, way too big and you&#x27;d probably die.
    • graypegg4 hours ago
      I don&#x27;t know for sure here, but isn&#x27;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&#x27;m assuming there&#x27;s always cell walls and nucleuses every step of the way here, and the egg and ostrich are never just one big cell.<p>I could be off base here though, I&#x27;m really channeling grade 9 bio class from decades ago!
      • knappa4 hours ago
        Unfertilized bird eggs are single cells, fertilized eggs should be multicellular by the time they are laid.
      • otherme1234 hours 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.
      • limbero4 hours ago
        You&#x27;re correct, but only for fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs are single cells.
    • jackmalpo4 hours ago
      skeletal muscle cells can be many cm in length
      • otherme1234 hours ago
        A neuron can be more than 1 meter long in humans, more than 20 meter in a whale.
  • firefax55 minutes ago
    maybe god is small too?
  • WorkerBee284745 hours ago
    Another answer is: They&#x27;re not - at least in some plants:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Valonia_ventricosa" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Valonia_ventricosa</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Acetabularia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Acetabularia</a>
  • gilleain4 hours ago
    Surface area to volume ratio?
    • dmd4 hours ago
      That&#x27;s literally the first thing in the article.
      • gilleain3 hours ago
        You got me. Usually I read them.<p>edit: Huh. Actually not a bad read. It even mentions &#x27; On Growth and Form&#x27; which is interesting, if outdated. There are more modern texts like &#x27;Shapes&#x27;, &#x27;Flow&#x27;, and &#x27;Branches&#x27; by Philip J Ball.