Talk:Adenosine triphosphate/Archives/ 1#Requested move

{{Substituted comment|length=2482|lastedit=20071015210047|comment=The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), catalyze (A) (British: catalyse), hydrolyze (A) (British: hydrolyse), hydrolyse (B) (American: hydrolyze), signaling (A) (British: signalling), signalling (B) (American: signaling), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
• Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)}}

Substituted at 06:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, explain this equation:

: {{chem|C|6|H|12|O|6}}$\backslash to$ 2{{chem|CH|3|CH(OH)COOH}} + 2 ATP

There are only 6 C atoms on the left and there are no N or P atoms there. On the right, in addition to 2CH3CH(OH)COOH , there are 2 molecules of ATP. The ATP is described in the article as a "molecular unit of energy transfer" but it does not consist of energy. It has a chemical formula. The chemical formula for an ATP is reported as C10H16N5O13P3. 10 atoms of nitrogen and 6 atoms of phosphorus in addition to 20 C's, 32H's and 26 O's. How is it possible to create so many atoms in a simple chemical reaction of sugar? Why bother to build nuclear reactors? It would be very kind if someone could explain whether energy (in kJ) is added or produced in the reaction and how much energy is there if any. The main article does not explain it (see Fermentation) .

If it is so that a kind of shorthand notation is used in this article that follows some university books which make equations brief and more acceptable for the advanced reader, this should be explained for the benefit of general reader. C. Trifle (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong however doesn’t Caffeine disrupt the regular flow of ATP throughout out the body, i.e. the hit you get about 1/2 an hour after drinking a cup of coffee.

• Take a look at the caffeine article. It doesn't directly affect the utilization of ATP, it inhibits the binding of adenosine with a cell surface receptor that normally serves to suppress neuronal activity, resulting in a net increase in central nervous system activity. It is important to note that adenosine, in this case, is entirely seperate from ATP: these two functions just happen to use the same base molecule (the receptor in question is on the outer surface of the cell membrane, whereas ATP tends to only be found on the inside of cells). – ClockworkSoul 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ATP does not travel 'through the body'. It remains inside cells. There is no trans-membrane transport system for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.42.161.234 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The first line of the article states that ATP is a "small but surprising molecule". I think it should be revised as molecules seldom are surprising, and if ATP for some reason is surprising then the reason for it being surprising should be stated. Also the sentence as it is currently formulated suggest that the molecule size is inversely related to the "surprisingness" of molecules.

Suggestions: Either remove "surprising" or state why it is surprising.

I don't have access to the cited article and cannot check whether this is taken from the article or added afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.156.217 (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this article provides a very precise, detailed explanation of how ATP works within the cell, for organelles, and is used in biology. The article cites ATP as the "molecular unit of currency" in its opening, which is a very valuable depiction of what the compound is. This description helps to paint a vivid picture for how it is involved in cellular activities for those who are not yet familiar with the concept as well as how cells maintain their functions and the functions of their organelles over time. Because ATP's role is somewhat complex in explanation, the 4th paragraph in the opening section could explain what ATP does but not necessarily all of the terminology in its processes. An example of this is the lack of information in the article in regards to what cyclic AMP actually is. The article is rather technical in it's details, however, with basic knowledge of proteins, lipids, and cell function, the idea of how ATP works can be accurately described. This article would have been very helpful during micro biology as it would have helped to better illustrate ATP in terms of a method of preserving cellular function. This article would also have been helpful in describing the function of neurons. The last paragraph of the opening section gives somewhat of a history of ATP in the relative scientific history of biology. The rest of the article became very technical but was understandable with the aid of previous background in biology and chemistry. Glycolysis is mentioned, which is an important mention, and ties into the basic function of cell organelles as well as the Krebs Cycle. The entirety of the article overall addresses the various functions of ATP in aiding the various ongoings within the cell, which is a very good explanation for what ATP is and how it is important. The two questions about the content of cellular functions explained would be concerning the lack of mention of the terms "action potential" and "resting potential". Why were these terms specifically not included when explaining potential gradients? Would the article have made more sense to explicitly use and incorporate these terms when discussing electrical gradients?Mcclellan35 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

----

This article covers a quick in depth analysis of ATP fairly well. Most of the readers I assume are biochemistry and microbiology students attempting to get of sense of what ATP is. In order to provide information that can help guide the most common reader we should simplify the introduction, publish the thermochemistry (Enthalpy and Entropy), and change the graphic of the 3D model to the ideal image in the talk section above to match the 2D image above. The rest of the article is what I would expect in the ATP article. TerpeneOtto (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I read The Vital Question by Nick Lane. I came away from the book thinking that ATP was super fascinating. I do not get that takeaway from this Wikipedia article.

130.76.24.27 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Why include the sentence "A system that is far from equilibrium contains Gibbs free energy, and is capable of doing work."

I am not sure that this sentence is apposite here, adding to an overall "over-verbosity" that cutters a subject which of itself at its core, is complicated enough --let alone Gibb's free energy is to do with overall thermodynamic impetus for chemical reactions, not per se, if (say) a ball is going to roll down a hill.

I just feel the said sentence is "peacocking" a bit too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2002:2F8:A2BE:91CC:E1EF:B716:D233 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The article and related ones often state or imply that ATP is a molecule. It is an anion. Always. The fully protonated form is instructive in some ways, but is awful to chemists who are picky about details like that. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A popular metaphor for people with an intuitive grip on energetics is to refer to ATP as "currency" and focus on exchanging energy from phosphodiester hydrolysis for endergonic processes, etc. For folks without this intuitive picture in their brains, the metaphor is probably confusing. Instead, the behavior of ATP can be described as a series of reactions, including the fact that it is recycled. So my plan is to mention the metaphor, but remove much of it from the article. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This section commented out below appears to be pretty specialized but maybe others can rescue parts for re-instatement.

All adenosine receptors were shown to activate at least one subfamily of mitogen-activated protein kinases. The actions of adenosine are often antagonistic or synergistic to the actions of ATP. In the CNS, adenosine has multiple functions, such as modulation of neural development, neuron and glial signalling and the control of innate and adaptive immune systems.-->

--Smokefoot (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

The article says citation neede for the correct structure of ATP was not determined until some years later - but I can't find when it was actually devised. The 2 teams were "just" trying to find a way to assay phosphorus in blood (mainly), in a quick and effective manner, the link to the discovery of ATP and its structure is far from obvious - while a necessary condition.

Does someone know more about this?

{{Talk:Adenosine triphosphate/GA2}}

Currently the article contains the simple equation:

:ATP + {{chem|H|2|O}} → ADP + P_i

Do we reckon it's worth explicitly including the redox?{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.au/books?id=dqSuoOtDM1cC&lpg=PA34&dq=photosynthesis+reaction+equation+generalized&pg=PA13&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=photosynthesis%20reaction%20equation%20generalized&f=false|title=Concepts in Photobiology: Photosynthesis and Photomorphogenesis|last=Singhal|first=G. S.|date=1999|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=9780792355199|language=en}} Page 34

:ATP^-4 + H₂O → ADP^-3 + P_i^-2 + H⁺

Is this just introducing unnecessary complication? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

:Good idea to be more explicit. There is no redox BTW.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

::{{re|smokefoot}} Good to get a chemist's input; my chemistry's a bit rusty! I'd also love your opinion on the photosynthesis equation discussed here if you have a moment. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

::::ATP^-4 + H₂O → ADP^-3 + P_i^-2 + {{xt|2}}H⁺ {{=)}}

::::What's in the article now looks good. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

I learn in school that our body makes ATP out of glucose and oxygen. Where does the nitrogen and phosphorus come from, which are part of ATP? --2001:16B8:313A:E400:DDC8:DF60:4624:C318 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:That's actually a good question, and not well explained (or linked to) in this article. Dietary nitrogen comes from a variety of sources (mainly proteins) and is converted into the adenine part of ATP, as summarised on the Purine_metabolism page. Dietary phosphorus is mostly acquired from phosphorus-containing compounds (e.g. DNA and phopholipids). Sadly the only part of Wikipedia that discusses this is a tiny section of the Phosphorus article. This looks like a serious gap in the encyclopedia that we will need to fix. Plants get their phosphorus and nitrogen from the soil (some plants can also get nitrogen from the air). See Phosphorus_cycle and Nitrogen_cycle. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:Our body doesn't really make ATP out of glucose and oxygen. Combining glucose and oxygen releases lots of energy. Our body uses that energy to combine ADP (adenosine diphosphate) with a free phosphate group, making ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The article currently mentions and explains magnesium here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate#Binding_of_metal_cations_to_ATP. What the article does not mention, though, is that ATP can be bound to other divalent cations, such as mangan. It would be useful to have this mentioned; and, ideally, also compare the binding affinity of other cations compared to magnesium. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(in the category pre-life hypotheses; but we need lab data) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8473:FF00:80D8:7C36:61E2:943D (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In the part where is says "roll over in illustration," what illustration is being referred to?

NCBioTeacher (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This article states that the total quantity of ATP in the human body is approximately 0.2 moles, but I can't find that anywhere else. Perhaps we can delete this?

If it's true, I think we need a more precise number. I'm not sure approximations are a good idea here. Eatmorepies (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The sideboard lists the pKa as 6.6 -- That is true for THE FOURTH PKA/DEPROTONATION relative to the structure depicted in the sideboard. Additionally there is a fifth pKa as well on the nucleoside somewhere around 12.5 though obviously that is less important to acknowledge or list. Needless to say a little disambiguation should be added to that listed pKa value as a result, because without adding any specificity of what that pKa is it is easily misinterpreted in all sorts of unfortunate ways. I am having trouble finding precise measures for those first three pKa, but I am seeing them frequently listed as "strong" which probably corresponds to a pKa like <=1.5. For a reference for the first three deprotonation events as "strong" see: McElroy, W.D.; Glass, B. Phosphorus Metabolism, Vol. I, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1951. Weather or not the first three pKa events should be mentioned at all on the wiki page I leave up to the page maintainer (IMHO that is useful information to have though), but the currently listed pKa on the page should at least somehow note that it is the THE FOURTH deprotonation event relative to the depicted structure to prevent bad misconceptions.162.220.42.222 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Follow up: Some suggestion here: Hall, H.K., Jr. J. A.m. Chem. Soc. 1957, 79, 5441. that the third pKa (just before the listed one) is 4.0, which is not actually "strong" like the first two appear to be.162.220.42.222 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

40px 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): Marinaanise.

{{small|Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

In the chemical formula of ATP written in the article (C10H16N5O13P3), why does it has 3 extra hydrogen atoms (H16) when in fact it has only 13 hydrogen atoms. You can clearly see the anion oxygen atoms of the phosphorus group

Why?

Fake signature: --- Cube ---

Cube26 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the science of life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.184.123 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Phosphate is phosphorus(V). The neutral oxygen on each phosphorus that has no other bonds needs to have a double bond to phosphorus. Oxygen always completes it's octet. With only one single bond, those oxygens do not have a full octet. Science Is My Life (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

:I agree and reverted the image. This issue was introduced {{Diff|Adenosine_triphosphate|prev|1084081352|here|diffonly=yes}} with a message indicating the editor wished to show "more realistic relative bond lengths and angles." But this style of schematic representation isn't suitable for that purpose. Eden hochbaum (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

::Note that the same editor made a similar edit to GTP's page (and presumably to other of the nucleotides' pages) - I haven't reverted any of these, but someone may wish to review.

::Separately, I assume ATP is in an anion form at physiological pH? Perhaps the top image should reflect that as well. Eden hochbaum (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems odd that whilst mentioned in the introduction, the function of ATP in muscle contraction isn't mentioned in any depth Henry5040 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Hunter_College/CHEM_378_(Spring_2024) | assignments = UTK443 | start_date = 2024-01-29 | end_date = 2024-05-15 }}

— Assignment last updated by Biochem2024 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

ATP is the endogenous ligand for the P2X receptor which is an ligand-gated ion channel and P2Y receptors have specificty for ADP, GTP, etc... I made sure to put it at the beginning of the article so it reaches more people.Sylocin (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)