MODERATORSWe make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. Anabolic reactions require energy, but bond formation releases energy? Anabolic reactions require an input of energy, and form larger molecules. But the formation of bonds release energy. Stp catabolic reactions form energy, but breaking bonds require energy.
Metabolism and explain the role of ATP in anabolism and catabolism. Flashcards | Quizlet
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. Anabolic reactions require energy, but bond formation releases energy?
Anabolic reactions require an input of energy, and form larger molecules. But the formation of bonds release energy. While catabolic reactions form energy, but breaking bonds require energy. Can someone clarify this for me? To form or break down covalent bonds between atoms, there is a barrier called the "activation energy" for non-spontaneous reactions given the conditions. Spontaneous reactions go on their own and we will discuss them in a moment. The reason we need to overcome this initial energetic hurdle is that what all reactions do is, at a given state, move to a more energetically favorable state which we typically discuss as lower overall energy state.
What you are overlooking in non-spontaneous anabolic reactions is just that; they are non-spontaneous! At the state before you build up a more complex molecule, the components are not energetically favorable to combine. We need to charge up these molecules enough so that, given the 'choice' between staying separate at a high energy state and combining, the two substrates form a bond, which takes energy, but are able to then exist in a lower energy state than after the activation energy was added and they were separate.
Whether or not the product s is are energetically lower or higher than the reactants defines whether a reaction is endergonic or exergonic, meaning higher and lower NET energy, respectively.
Whether or not the reaction is anabolic or catabolic does not change this process. Now spontaneous reactions are almost always talked about given a set of conditions. Because activation energy effectively makes non-spontaneous reactions spontaneous for the sake of understanding. Spontaneous reactions are already over that energetic barrier at the state they were already, so they just react.
Some reactions are spontaneous given basically all conditions, but most are not. Anabolic typically refers to biological reactions that increase in complexity a combination reaction. Catabolic refers to the reverse a decomposition reaction. Outside of biological molecules, these terms are not often used. Thank you for writing that out, but the problem I am having is that anabolic reactions require energy. But in an anabolic reaction, bonds are formed, which release energy. So I guess the confusion is; how can anabolic reactions require energy but also release energy?
And catabloic reactions release energy, but breaking bonds require energy. So it releases energy but also requires energy. Reread what I said. ALL non-spontaneous reactions require activation energy. If the product is "bigger," it is anabolic. If it is "smaller," it is catabolic. Endergonic and exergonic refer to energy state of product. Catabolic processes can be endergonic or exergonic. Anabolic processes can be endergonic or exergonic.
If a reaction is endergonic, it is in a higher energetic state than the reactants. If a reaction is exergonic, it is in a lower energetic state than the reactants. Did you mean to say "the two substrates form a bond, which release energy, but are able to then exist in a lower energy state than after the activation energy was added and before they were separate.
Other than that, I think I get it now. Forming a bond takes energy! You need to put in energy to form a bond. When two substrates a bond, SOME energy is stored in it, BUT because of this new bond, excess energy can now be released effectively and the product will exist at a lower state than the intermediate state after the activation energy was added.
This new energy state may be higher or lower than the original. If you are right, then what holds to atoms together? If there is no energy there, why do they stay stuck together?
It is one shape of energy, like temperature, for example. I said some energy exists in that bond. You are misunderstanding how chemistry works in its entirety and refusing to try to read critically.
It is called "the activation energy. Breaking bonds and forming bonds are independent of taking or releasing energy. I just want to point out that forming a bond releases energy. So i'm just going to go ahead and ignore you. Forming a bond releases energy, great.
Activation energy means breaking and making all bonds take energy. And whether or not you make bonds or break bonds, doesn't determine the net energy change of the reaction in and of itself. I have still said the right thing and you are fighting your own fight in a corner. I have yet to argue with your statements except to say, not only are they not complete, you are overlooking what matters energetically.
While I am not an expert on metabolism, I can tell you that bond creation or destruction can release energy or take in energy depending on whether or not the product is more or less energetic system. This is a ordinary reaction coordinate which shows the general idea, however a complex biological reaction would look more like ocean waves than just the nice hill depicted here. Your catabolic reaction breaks up a high energy system or molecule into lower energy product, this released energy is then used as the investment energy anabolic reaction to push lower energy molecules into a higher energy state or more complex molecule which is useful to your body.
Thank you very much. I was getting caught up in the belief that the bonds being made and broken were of equal energy. Generally the way to look at energy in biology - the more reduced a compound is, the more energy it has or the more oxygen in a compound, the lower energy it has. Two of the highest energy compounds are Fatty Acids, consistent with your statement and ATP, inconsistent with your statement.
Please reconsider what you mean. ATP is high in energy mainly because of charge locality in the inorganic phosphates. It's irrelevant to discussion, as far as substrates in metabolic pathways is concerned. ATP is the most univeral substrate in metabolic pathways, thank you. Reduced compounds are higher energy substrates for metabolic pathways.
The two statements could not be more different. Bigger people are more likely to be stronger vs. People who are bigger do to muscular strength are more likely to be stronger. One is a gross generalization that discounts a huge contextual point. The more reduced a substrate within a metabolic pathway, the more energy can be produced typically by the end of said pathway. For the record, hydrocarbon chains are so unreactive because they are incredibly LOW energetically.
Luckily our body can overcome their stability. Now you're just being pedantic. That's exactly the idea I was proposing, but you're militantly opposed to it, because of wording. All biological molecules are relatively low in energy. Even ATP is somewhat stable unstable enough to be a transport for energy, but not unstable enough to degrade spontaneously.
It simply depends if the reaction is endergonic or exergonic. Endergonic is a reaction that absorbs energy to react and is not spontaneous will not react on its own , IE breaking bonds in your example that was the basis for the question, OP; whereas exergonic is a reaction that releases energy to react and is spontaneous, meaning it will react on its own. Just to clarify a couple of key points, AsAChemicalEngineer did a great job explaining his piece, just wanted to add some of my background as a CBE in here.
I am sorry but you make several generalizations that are false. Catabolic reations are NOT always a high energy reactant to a low energy product. Sure, we can break down glucose to pyruvate and use phosphates from an intermediate to build up ATP. But what about the reverse? We can build pyruvate right back to glucose. In both cases we have catabolism leading to anabolism but the product of one is the reactant of the other!
Clearly, they cannot both be both higher energy and lower energy. Endergonic and exergonic are the correct terms for higher and lower energy products, respectively. Generally a catabolic reaction has to liberate some form of useful energy? Catabolism consists of reactions involving endogenous organic substrates to provide chemically available energy e.
Where does it say the products are of lower energy? Where does it say that they are of higher energy?!?!? It says to provide chemically available energy! ATP catabolism provides energy to form Glucose back from Pyruvate.
Where does this energy come from? There is a change, a negative gibbs free energy associated with this type of reaction. This energy is often put to use to fuel an anabolic process am I right? I'm sorry I'm if I'm not understanding this properly, but there isn't a need to be a jerk about it.