Which statement best explains why a plant cell has chloroplasts but most animal cells do not?

2 answers:

6 0

A plant cell needs to make food out of chloroplasts using energy from the sun to get its food, while the animal cell eats food and creates energy, which is the reason why animal cells do not need chloroplasts.

irinina [24]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

Both animal and plant cells have mitochondria, but only plant cells have chloroplasts. Plants don't get their sugar from eating food, so they need to make sugar from sunlight. Because animals get sugar from the food they eat, they do not need chloroplasts: just mitochondria.

Explanation:

You might be interested in

An insect eats a leaf. Explain how the insect depends on the sun for energy.

Lelu [443]

The leaf needs the sun to grow and gain energy. the insect then eats the leaf and gets its nutrition and energy.
hope this helps you
:)

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

we know that tiktaalik is more closely is more related to acanthostega than it iscanyhostega eusthenopteron because tiktaalik an

Anuta_ua [19.1K]

The answer is : Both have true necks, while eusthenopteron has no neck. We know that tiktaalik is more closely related to acanthostega than it is Ichthyostega eusthenopteron because Tiktaalik and Acanthostega both have true necks while eusthenopteron has none.

6 0

3 years ago

A large body of rock or gas that orbits the earther

adell [148]

In a scientific it would be called a satellite, don't question it.

7 0

2 years ago

All cells in multicellular organisms contain thousands of different kinds of enzymes that are specialized to catalyze different

Vlad1618 [11]

Different enzymes have specific active sites which can only catalyze one substrate. Enzyme-substrate complexes are produced only when the substrate fits into the active site :)

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

People who are tune deaf are unable to follow a rhythm. Scientists have evidence that tune deafness can be genetic. The pedigree

butalik [34]

Question

Pedigree attached

a. Provide evidence from the pedigree that conclusively shows that the tune deafness allele is autosomal dominant, not autosomal recessive. Explain your reasoning.

b. Identify the genotypes of individuals 5 and 6, and then draw the Punnett square for the cross of these two individuals.

c. Compare the expected percentage of each phenotype of the offspring from the cross in part (b) with the actual percentage of each phenotype observed in the children of individuals 5 and 6.

Answer/Explanation:

a. Autosomal dominant means that even having one copy of the allele T will produce a tune deaf individual. The evidence of this is that individuals II.3 and 4 have children (III. 8 and 9) with normal tune perception. This suggests that they have inherited the normal allele from both parents. That means II.3 and II4 must be heterozygous, in order to pass on the normal allele. This makes sense if tune deafness is dominant (because 3 and 4 will both be Tt and Tt, so can pass on the t alleles). However, if tune deafness was recessive, that would mean that individual II 3 and 4 both have to carry 2 copies, meaning there is no way their children would have normal tune perception.

b. Since individual 5 is unaffected and we know this is the recessive trait, they must be Tt. Since individual 6 is affected, they must be either Tt or tt. However, they have children who are unaffected (11, 12, 13) who must be tt. This means, individual 6 must have the t allele to pass on, and must be Tt. Therefore, the cross between individuals 5 and 6 is tt x Tt:

T t

t Tt tt

c) The punnet square shows the children from (b) have a 50:50 chance of being tune deaf vs normal tune perception (50% each). In contrast, the actual ratios are 25% tune deaf to 75% normal tune perception. (1:4). This deviates from the expected ratio, but since all of these are due to chance, it is not an unexpected occurrence. Perhaps if there were 10, 50 or 100 children (!) from this cross, the results would be more like the expected ratio

5 0

3 years ago