document_title: Cellular respiration

question_text: which process produces the most atp molecules in aerobic cellular respiration

root

text: Cellular respiration

text: Aerobic respiration

text: Aerobic respiration requires oxygen (O2) in order to create ATP. Although carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are consumed as reactants, it is the preferred method of pyruvate breakdown in glycolysis and requires that pyruvate enter the mitochondria in order to be fully oxidized by the Krebs cycle. The products of this process are carbon dioxide and water, but the energy transferred is used to break bonds in ADP as the third phosphate group is added to form ATP (adenosine triphosphate), by substrate-level phosphorylation, NADH and FADH2

tag: p

text:
Simplified reaction:
C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + heat

ΔG = −2880 kJ per mol of C6H12O6

tag: table

text: The negative ΔG indicates that the reaction can occur spontaneously.

text: The potential of NADH and FADH2 is converted to more ATP through an electron transport chain with oxygen as the "terminal electron acceptor". Most of the ATP produced by aerobic cellular respiration is made by oxidative phosphorylation. This works by the energy released in the consumption of pyruvate being used to create a chemiosmotic potential by pumping protons across a membrane. This potential is then used to drive ATP synthase and produce ATP from ADP and a phosphate group. Biology textbooks often state that 38 ATP molecules can be made per oxidised glucose molecule during cellular respiration (2 from glycolysis, 2 from the Krebs cycle, and about 34 from the electron transport system).[2] However, this maximum yield is never quite reached because of losses due to leaky membranes as well as the cost of moving pyruvate and ADP into the mitochondrial matrix, and current estimates range around 29 to 30 ATP per glucose.[2]

text: Aerobic metabolism is up to 15 times more efficient than anaerobic metabolism (which yields 2 molecules ATP per 1 molecule glucose). However some anaerobic organisms, such as methanogens are able to continue with anaerobic respiration, yielding more ATP by using other inorganic molecules (not oxygen) as final electron acceptors in the electron transport chain. They share the initial pathway of glycolysis but aerobic metabolism continues with the Krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. The post-glycolytic reactions take place in the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells, and in the cytoplasm in prokaryotic cells.

text: Aerobic respiration summed up

text: 1. Glycolysis:

text: --- 2 ATPs + Glucose → 2 Pyruvic Acid + 4 Hydrogen + 4 ATPs

text: 2. Formation of Acetyl CoA:

text: --- 2 Pyruvic Acid + 2 CoA → 2 Acetyl CoA + 2 Carbon Dioxide + 2 Hydrogen

text: 3. Krebs Cycle:

text: --- 2 Acetyl CoA + 3 O2 → 6 Hydrogen + 4 Carbon Dioxide + 2 ATPs

text: 4. Electron Transport System:

text: --- 12 Hydrogen + 3 O2 → 6 Water + 32 ATPs

text: Overall Reaction:

text: --- Glucose + 6 O2 → 6 Carbon Dioxide + 6 Water + 36 ATPs

text: Glycolysis

text: Glycolysis is a metabolic pathway that takes place in the cytosol of cells in all living organisms. This pathway can function with or without the presence of oxygen. In humans, aerobic conditions produce pyruvate and anaerobic conditions produce lactate. In aerobic conditions, the process converts one molecule of glucose into two molecules of pyruvate (pyruvic acid), generating energy in the form of two net molecules of ATP. Four molecules of ATP per glucose are actually produced, however, two are consumed as part of the preparatory phase. The initial phosphorylation of glucose is required to increase the reactivity (decrease its stability) in order for the molecule to be cleaved into two pyruvate molecules by the enzyme aldolase. During the pay-off phase of glycolysis, four phosphate groups are transferred to ADP by substrate-level phosphorylation to make four ATP, and two NADH are produced when the pyruvate are oxidized. The overall reaction can be expressed this way:

text: Starting with glucose, 1 ATP is used to donate a phosphate to glucose to produce glucose 6-phosphate. Glycogen can be converted into glucose 6-phosphate as well with the help of glycogen phosphorylase. During energy metabolism, glucose 6-phosphate becomes fructose 6-phosphate. An additional ATP is used to phosphorylate fructose 6-phosphate into fructose 1,6-disphosphate by the help of phosphofructokinase. Fructose 1,6-diphosphate then splits into two phosphorylated molecules with three carbon chains which later degrades into pyruvate.

text: Glycolysis can be literally translated as "sugar splitting".[3]

text: Oxidative decarboxylation of pyruvate

text: Pyruvate is oxidized to acetyl-CoA and CO2 by the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC). The PDC contains multiple copies of three enzymes and is located in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and in the cytosol of prokaryotes. In the conversion of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA, one molecule of NADH and one molecule of CO2 is formed.

text: Citric acid cycle

text: This is also called the Krebs cycle or the tricarboxylic acid cycle. When oxygen is present, acetyl-CoA is produced from the pyruvate molecules created from glycolysis. Once acetyl-CoA is formed, aerobic or anaerobic respiration can occur.[4] When oxygen is present, the mitochondria will undergo aerobic respiration which leads to the Krebs cycle. However, if oxygen is not present, fermentation of the pyruvate molecule will occur. In the presence of oxygen, when acetyl-CoA is produced, the molecule then enters the citric acid cycle (Krebs cycle) inside the mitochondrial matrix, and is oxidized to CO2 while at the same time reducing NAD to NADH. NADH can be used by the electron transport chain to create further ATP as part of oxidative phosphorylation. To fully oxidize the equivalent of one glucose molecule, two acetyl-CoA must be metabolized by the Krebs cycle. Two waste products, H2O and CO2, are created during this cycle.

text: The citric acid cycle is an 8-step process involving 18 different enzymes and co-enzymes.[4] During the cycle, acetyl-CoA (2 carbons) + oxaloacetate (4 carbons) yields citrate (6 carbons), which is rearranged to a more reactive form called isocitrate (6 carbons). Isocitrate is modified to become α-ketoglutarate (5 carbons), succinyl-CoA, succinate, fumarate, malate, and, finally, oxaloacetate.

text: The net gain of high-energy compounds from one cycle is 3 NADH, 1 FADH2, and 1 GTP; the GTP may subsequently be used to produce ATP. Thus, the total yield from 1 glucose molecule (2 pyruvate molecules) is 6 NADH, 2 FADH2, and 2 ATP.

text: Oxidative phosphorylation

text: In eukaryotes, oxidative phosphorylation occurs in the mitochondrial cristae. It comprises the electron transport chain that establishes a proton gradient (chemiosmotic potential) across the boundary of inner membrane by oxidizing the NADH produced from the Krebs cycle. ATP is synthesized by the ATP synthase enzyme when the chemiosmotic gradient is used to drive the phosphorylation of ADP. The electrons are finally transferred to exogenous oxygen and, with the addition of two protons, water is formed.

text: Efficiency of ATP production

text: The table below describes the reactions involved when one glucose molecule is fully oxidized into carbon dioxide. It is assumed that all the reduced coenzymes are oxidized by the electron transport chain and used for oxidative phosphorylation.

text:
Step
coenzyme yield
ATP yield
Source of ATP

Glycolysis preparatory phase

−2
Phosphorylation of glucose and fructose 6-phosphate uses two ATP from the cytoplasm.

Glycolysis pay-off phase

4
Substrate-level phosphorylation

2 NADH
3 or 5
Oxidative phosphorylation : Each NADH produces net 1.5 ATP (instead of usual 2.5) due to NADH transport over the mitochondrial membrane

Oxidative decarboxylation of pyruvate
2 NADH
5
Oxidative phosphorylation

Krebs cycle

2
Substrate-level phosphorylation

6 NADH
15
Oxidative phosphorylation

2 FADH2
3
Oxidative phosphorylation

Total yield
30 or 32 ATP
From the complete oxidation of one glucose molecule to carbon dioxide and oxidation of all the reduced coenzymes.

text: Although there is a theoretical yield of 38 ATP molecules per glucose during cellular respiration, such conditions are generally not realized because of losses such as the cost of moving pyruvate (from glycolysis), phosphate, and ADP (substrates for ATP synthesis) into the mitochondria. All are actively transported using carriers that utilize the stored energy in the proton electrochemical gradient.

text:
Pyruvate is taken up by a specific, low Km transporter to bring it into the mitochondrial matrix for oxidation by the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex.
The phosphate carrier (PiC) mediates the electroneutral exchange (antiport) of phosphate (H2PO4−; Pi) for OH− or symport of phosphate and protons (H+) across the inner membrane, and the driving force for moving phosphate ions into the mitochondria is the proton motive force.
The ATP-ADP translocase (also called adenine nucleotide translocase, ANT) is an antiporter and exchanges ADP and ATP across the inner membrane. The driving force is due to the ATP (−4) having a more negative charge than the ADP (−3), and thus it dissipates some of the electrical component of the proton electrochemical gradient.

text: The outcome of these transport processes using the proton electrochemical gradient is that more than 3 H+ are needed to make 1 ATP. Obviously this reduces the theoretical efficiency of the whole process and the likely maximum is closer to 28–30 ATP molecules.[2] In practice the efficiency may be even lower because the inner membrane of the mitochondria is slightly leaky to protons.[5] Other factors may also dissipate the proton gradient creating an apparently leaky mitochondria. An uncoupling protein known as thermogenin is expressed in some cell types and is a channel that can transport protons. When this protein is active in the inner membrane it short circuits the coupling between the electron transport chain and ATP synthesis. The potential energy from the proton gradient is not used to make ATP but generates heat. This is particularly important in brown fat thermogenesis of newborn and hibernating mammals.

text: According to some of newer sources the ATP yield during aerobic respiration is not 36–38, but only about 30–32 ATP molecules / 1 molecule of glucose [6], because:

text:
ATP : NADH+H+ and ATP : FADH2 ratios during the oxidative phosphorylation appear to be not 3 and 2, but 2.5 and 1.5 respectively. Unlike in the substrate-level phosphorylation, the stoichiometry here is difficult to establish.

ATP synthase produces 1 ATP / 3 H+. However the exchange of matrix ATP for cytosolic ADP and Pi (antiport with OH− or symport with H+) mediated by ATP–ADP translocase and phosphate carrier consumes 1 H+ / 1 ATP as a result of regeneration of the transmembrane potential changed during this transfer, so the net ratio is 1 ATP : 4 H+.
The mitochondrial electron transport chain proton pump transfers across the inner membrane 10 H+ / 1 NADH+H+ (4 + 2 + 4) or 6 H+ / 1 FADH2 (2 + 4).

text:
ATP : NADH+H+ coming from glycolysis ratio during the oxidative phosphorylation is

1.5, as for FADH2, if hydrogen atoms (2H++2e−) are transferred from cytosolic NADH+H+ to mitochondrial FAD by the glycerol phosphate shuttle located in the inner mitochondrial membrane.
2.5 in case of malate-aspartate shuttle transferring hydrogen atoms from cytosolic NADH+H+ to mitochondrial NAD+

text: So finally we have, per molecule of glucose

text:
Substrate-level phosphorylation: 2 ATP from glycolysis + 2 ATP (directly GTP) from Krebs cycle
Oxidative phosphorylation

2 NADH+H+ from glycolysis: 2 × 1.5 ATP (if glycerol phosphate shuttle transfers hydrogen atoms) or 2 × 2.5 ATP (malate-aspartate shuttle)
2 NADH+H+ from the oxidative decarboxylation of pyruvate and 6 from Krebs cycle: 8 × 2.5 ATP
2 FADH2 from the Krebs cycle: 2 × 1.5 ATP

text: Altogether this gives 4 + 3 (or 5) + 20 + 3 = 30 (or 32) ATP per molecule of glucose

text: The total ATP yield in ethanol or lactic acid fermentation is only 2 molecules coming from glycolysis, because pyruvate is not transferred to the mitochondrion and finally oxidized to the carbon dioxide (CO2), but reduced to ethanol or lactic acid in the cytoplasm.[6]

text: Fermentation

text: Without oxygen, pyruvate (pyruvic acid) is not metabolized by cellular respiration but undergoes a process of fermentation. The pyruvate is not transported into the mitochondrion, but remains in the cytoplasm, where it is converted to waste products that may be removed from the cell. This serves the purpose of oxidizing the electron carriers so that they can perform glycolysis again and removing the excess pyruvate. Fermentation oxidizes NADH to NAD+ so it can be re-used in glycolysis. In the absence of oxygen, fermentation prevents the buildup of NADH in the cytoplasm and provides NAD+ for glycolysis. This waste product varies depending on the organism. In skeletal muscles, the waste product is lactic acid. This type of fermentation is called lactic acid fermentation. In strenuous exercise, when energy demands exceed energy supply, the respiratory chain cannot process all of the hydrogen atoms joined by NADH. During anaerobic glycolysis, NAD+ regenerates when pairs of hydrogen combine with pyruvate to form lactate. Lactate formation is catalyzed by lactate dehydrogenase in a reversible reaction. Lactate can also be used as an indirect precursor for liver glycogen. During recovery, when oxygen becomes available, NAD+ attaches to hydrogen from lactate to form ATP. In yeast, the waste products are ethanol and carbon dioxide. This type of fermentation is known as alcoholic or ethanol fermentation. The ATP generated in this process is made by substrate-level phosphorylation, which does not require oxygen.

text: Fermentation is less efficient at using the energy from glucose: only 2 ATP are produced per glucose, compared to the 38 ATP per glucose nominally produced by aerobic respiration. This is because the waste products of fermentation still contain chemical potential energy that can be released by oxidation. Ethanol, for example, can be burned in an internal combustion engine like gasoline. Glycolytic ATP, however, is created more quickly. For prokaryotes to continue a rapid growth rate when they are shifted from an aerobic environment to an anaerobic environment, they must increase the rate of the glycolytic reactions. For multicellular organisms, during short bursts of strenuous activity, muscle cells use fermentation to supplement the ATP production from the slower aerobic respiration, so fermentation may be used by a cell even before the oxygen levels are depleted, as is the case in sports that do not require athletes to pace themselves, such as sprinting.

text: Anaerobic respiration

text: Cellular respiration is the process by which biological fuels are oxidised in the presence of an inorganic electron acceptor (such as oxygen) to produce large amounts of energy, to drive the bulk production of ATP.

text: Anaerobic respiration is used by some microorganisms in which neither oxygen (aerobic respiration) nor pyruvate derivatives (fermentation) is the final electron acceptor. Rather, an inorganic acceptor such as sulfate or nitrate is used. Such organisms are typically found in unusual places such as underwater caves or near hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.


question_text: rad52 is involved in which type of dna damage repair

text: Function[edit]

text: The protein encoded by this gene shares similarity with Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52, a protein important for DNA double-strand break repair and homologous recombination. This gene product was shown to bind single-stranded DNA ends, and mediate the DNA-DNA interaction necessary for the annealing of complementary DNA strands. It was also found to interact with DNA recombination protein RAD51, which suggested its role in RAD51-related DNA recombination and repair.[6]

text: Role in DNA recombination repair[edit]

text: RAD52 mediates RAD51 function in homologous recombinational repair (HRR) in both yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in mammalian cells of mice and humans. However, the RAD52 protein has distinctly different functions in HRR of yeast and humans. In S. cerevisae, Rad52 protein, acting alone, facilitates the loading of Rad51 protein onto single-stranded DNA pre-coated with replication protein A in the presynaptic phase of recombination.[7][8]

text: In mice and humans, however, BRCA2 primarily mediates orderly assembly of RAD51 on ssDNA, the form that is active for homologous pairing and strand invasion.[9] BRCA2 also redirects RAD51 from dsDNA and prevents dissociation from ssDNA.[9] In addition, the four paralogs of RAD51, consisting of RAD51B (RAD51L1), RAD51C (RAD51L2), RAD51D (RAD51L3), XRCC2 form a complex called the BCDX2 complex. This complex participates in RAD51 recruitment or stabilization at damage sites.[10] The BCDX2 complex appears to act by facilitating the assembly or stability of the RAD51 nucleoprotein filament. However, in the presence of a BRCA2 mutation, human RAD52 can mediate RAD51 assembly on ssDNA and substitute for BRCA2 in homologous recombinational DNA repair,[11] though with lower efficiency than BRCA2.

text: In addition, human RAD52, in combination with ERCC1, promotes the error-prone homologous DNA repair pathway of single-strand annealing.[12] Though error prone, this repair pathway may be needed for survival of cells with DNA damage that is not otherwise repairable.

text: Human RAD52 also has an important role in repair of DNA double-strand breaks at active transcription sites during the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle. Repair of these double-strand breaks appears to use an RNA template-based recombination mechanism dependent on RAD52.[13] The Cockayne Syndrome B protein (CSB) (coded for by ERCC6) localizes at double-strand breaks at sites of active transcription, followed by RAD51, RAD51C and RAD52 to carry out homologous recombinational repair using the newly synthesized RNA as a template.[13]

text: microRNAs and cancer risk[edit]

text: Three prime untranslated regions (3'UTRs) of messenger RNAs (mRNAs) often contain regulatory sequences that can cause post-transcriptional RNA silencing. Such 3'-UTRs often contain binding sites for microRNAs (miRNAs). By binding to specific sites within the 3'-UTR, miRNAs can decrease gene expression of various mRNAs by either inhibiting translation or directly causing degradation of the transcript.

text: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) appear to regulate the expression of more than 60% of protein coding genes of the human genome.[14] One microRNA, miR-210, represses RAD52.[15] As noted by Devlin et al., miR-210 is up-regulated in most solid tumors and negatively affects the clinical outcome.[16]

text: The 3'-UTR of RAD52 also has a binding site for the microRNA let-7. Women with a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the binding site for let-7 (rs7963551), that causes reduced binding of let-7, likely have increased expression of RAD52 (as was shown for this SNP in liver[17]). Women with this SNP in the 3'UTR of RAD52 showed a reduced breast cancer risk with an odds ratio of 0.84, 95% confidence interval of 0.75-0.95.[18]

text: In a Han Chinese population, the same SNP as above in the 3'-UTR of RAD52 binding site for let-7 (rs7963551) reduced the risk of glioma. The risk of glioma associated with the RAD52 rs7963551 genotype had an odds ratio (compared to those without the SNP) of 0.44 for those older than 41 years, and an odds ratio of 0.58 for those 41 years or younger.[19]

text: Li et al.[17] found significantly decreased hepatic cellular carcinoma risk among individuals with the RAD52 rs7963551 CC genotype (the same SNP as above) compared with those with the AA genotype in a Chinese population. They also found that in 44 normal human liver tissue samples, presence of the rs7963551 SNP was associated with a significant increase of RAD52 mRNA expression.

text: Thus increased RAD52 expression is protective against various cancers.

text: Another study of altered microRNA binding sites in RAD52 and their effects on cancer susceptibility was carried out by Naccarati et al.[20] They found two RAD52 microRNA binding sites that were frequently altered and had an effect on colon cancer risk. Individuals with a homozygous or heterozygous SNP in rs1051669 were at increased risk of colon cancer (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13–2.80, p = 0.01 for homozygotes and OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10–2.692, p = 0.02 for heterozygotes). Heterozygous carriers of the other RAD52 SNP (rs11571475) were at decreased risk of colon cancer (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58–1.00, p = 0.05). Of 21 genes in the homologous recombinational repair pathway and 7 genes in the non-homologous end joining pathway examined, the only SNPs found in microRNA binding regions which were both at high enough frequency to evaluate and which affected risks of colon cancer, were the two in RAD52 and one in MRE11A.

text: DNA damage appears to be the primary underlying cause of cancer,[21][22] and deficiencies in DNA repair appear to underlie many forms of cancer.[23] If DNA repair is deficient, DNA damage tends to accumulate. Such excess DNA damage may increase mutational errors during DNA replication due to error-prone translesion synthesis. Excess DNA damage may also increase epigenetic alterations due to errors during DNA repair.[24][25] Such mutations and epigenetic alterations may give rise to cancer. The frequent microRNA-induced increase or deficiency of RAD52-mediated DNA repair due to microRNA binding alterations likely contributes to either the prevention or progression of breast, brain, liver or colon cancers.

text: Interactions[edit]

text: RAD52 has been shown to interact with RAD51.[26] The Rad52 will ease the loading of Rad51 on ssDNA by interfering with the RPA protein.


document_title: List of average human height worldwide

question_text: what is the average male height in russia

text: List of average human height worldwide

text: Below are average adult human heights by country or geographical region. The original studies and sources should be consulted for details on methodology and the exact populations measured, surveyed, or considered.

text: As with any statistical data, the accuracy of such data may be questionable for various reasons:

text:
Some studies may allow subjects to self-report values. Generally speaking, self-reported height tends to be taller than its measured height, although the overestimation of height depends on the reporting subject's height, age, gender and region.[1][2][3][4]
Test subjects may have been invited instead of chosen at random, resulting in sampling bias.
Some countries may have significant height gaps between different regions. For instance, one survey shows there is 10.8 cm (4 1⁄2 in) gap between the tallest state and the shortest state in Germany.[5] Under such circumstances, the mean height may not represent the total population unless sample subjects are appropriately taken from all regions with using weighted average of the different regional groups.
Different social groups can show different mean height. According to a study in France, executives and professionals are 2.6 cm (1 in) taller, and university students are 2.55 cm (1 in) taller[6] than the national average.[7] As this case shows, data taken from a particular social group may not represent a total population in some countries.
A relatively small sample of the population may have been measured, which makes it uncertain whether this sample accurately represents the entire population.
The height of persons can vary over the course of a day, due to factors such as a height decrease from exercise done directly before measurement (i.e. inversely correlated), or a height increase since lying down for a significant period of time (i.e. positively correlated). For example, one study revealed a mean decrease of 1.54 centimetres (0.61 in) in the heights of 100 children from getting out of bed in the morning to between 4 and 5 p.m. that same day.[8] Such factors may not have been controlled in some of the studies.

tag: ul

text: Note: Letters in grey indicate non-measured height.

text:
Country/Region
Average male height
Average female height
Stature ratio
(male to female)
Sample population /
age range
Share of
pop. over 18
covered[9][10][11]
Methodology
Year
Source

Albania
174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–29 (N= m:649 f:1,806)
23.5%
Measured
2008–2009
[12][13]

Argentina
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
19–49
60.4%
Measured
2004–2005
[14]

Argentina
174.46 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.01 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Healthy, 18 (N= m:90 f:97, SD= m:7.43 cm (3 in) f:6.99 cm (3 in))
2.9%
Measured
1998–2001
[15]

Armenia
N/A
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,218, SD= f:5.7 cm (2 in))
48.6%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Australia
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18+
100.0%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Australia
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18–24
12.4%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Austria
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
54.3%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
180 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24
7.7%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
178.80 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
1.07
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Austria
179.2 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
167.6 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:53 f:69, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Azerbaijan
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.04
16+
106.5%
Measured
2005
[21]

Bahrain
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.2 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.07
19+ (N= m:1,120 f:1,181, SD= m:9.0 cm (3 1⁄2 in) f:7.8 cm (3 in))
97.7%
Measured
2002
[22]

Bahrain
171.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18
1.9%
Measured
2009
[23][24]

Bangladesh
N/A
150.6 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,368, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
56.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Belgium
178.70 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Belgium
178.6 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
168.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.7%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Benin
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,015, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.5%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Bolivia
N/A
151.8 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,302, SD= f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Bolivia
160.0 cm (5 ft 3 in)
142.2 cm (4 ft 8 in)
1.13
Aymara, 20–29
N/A
Measured
1970
[25]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
183.9 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
171.1 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Students at UBL,19–32 (N= m:178 f:34, SD= m:7.11 cm (3 in) f:6.56 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[26]
Measured
2014
[27]

Brazil
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+ (N= m:62,037 f:65,696)
100.0%
Measured
2009
[28][29]

Brazil
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:8,299 f:7,938)
13.0%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Urban
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:6,360 f:6,305)
10.9%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Rural
170.9 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:1,939 f:1,633)
2.1%
Measured
2009
[28]

Bulgaria
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.2 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Bulgaria – Sofia
178.1 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Burkina Faso
N/A
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,337, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Cambodia
N/A
152.4 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,081, SD= f:5.4 cm (2 in))
52.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Cameroon – Urban
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
15+ (N= m:3,746 f:5,078)
53.6%
Measured
2003
[31]

Cameroon – Urban
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.06
35-44 (N= m:558 f:1,156)
8.7%
Measured
2003
[31]

Canada
175.1 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.3 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79
94.7%
Measured
2007–2009
[32]

Canada
176.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
25–44
36.5%
Measured
2005
[3]

Central African Republic
N/A
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,408, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
50.0%
Self-reported
1994
[16]

Chad
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.9%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Chile
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
156.1 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
15+
107.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171.2 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.09
25–44
41.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
15–24
23.7%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

China, People's Republic of
167.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+
100.0%
Measured
2012
[34]

China, Mainland
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
19
2.1%
Measured
2010
[35]

China, People's Republic of – Urban
170.2 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.6 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
17
0.6%
Measured
2002
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Rural
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
157.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
17
1.6%
Measured
2002
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Beijing
174.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
21
0.2%[37]
Measured
2010
[38]

China, People's Republic of – Sichuan
169.2 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
0.7%[39]
Measured
2010
[40]

Colombia
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–22 (N= m:1,528,875 f:1,468,110)
14.1%
Measured
2002
[41]

Colombia
N/A
155.0 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:22,947, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Comoros
N/A
154.8 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:644, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Congo, Democratic Republic of the
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,727, SD= f:8.0 cm (3 in))
52.7%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Congo, Republic of the
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,922, SD= f:8.1 cm (3 in))
55.7%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Croatia
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
166.49 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18 (N= m:358 f:360, SD= m:6.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.6%
Measured
2006–2008
[42]

Cuba – Urban
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
15+
79.2%
Measured
1999
[43]

Czech Republic
180.31 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.22 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
17
1.6%
Measured
2001
[44]

Denmark
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–20 (N= m:38,025)
5.3%
Measured
2012
[45]

Denmark
181.4 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Denmark
182.6 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.7 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
23 (N= m:–20 f:20–49, SD= m:NA f:7.4 cm (3 in))
1.6%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Dinaric Alps
185.6 cm (6 ft 1 in)
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.08
17
N/A
Measured
2005
[46]

Dominican Republic
172.7 cm (5 ft 8 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,763, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.8%
Self-reported
2014
[47]

El Salvador
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49
50.9%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Egypt
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:845 f:1,059)
16.6%
Measured
2008
[48]

Egypt
N/A
159.5 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:13,813, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.2%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Estonia
179.1 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
17
2.3%
Measured
2003
[49]

Ethiopia
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,868, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.8%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Europe
177.6 cm (5 ft 10 in)[50]
N/A
N/A
17–29[51]
N/A
Measured and Self-reported
2001–2012
[12]

Finland
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m/f:2,305)
19.0%
Measured
1994
[52]

Finland
180.7 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
−25 (N= m/f:26,636)
9.2%
Measured
2010–2011
[52][53]

Finland
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.4%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

France
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–70 (N= m/f:11,562)
85.9%
Measured
2003–2004
[54][55]

France
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20+
96.6%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–29
17.5%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.3%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Gabon
N/A
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,576, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.1%
Self-reported
2000
[16]

Gambia – Rural
168.0 cm (5 ft 6 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
21–49 (N= m:9,559 f:13,160, SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1950–1974
[56]

Germany
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.8 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79 (N= m/f:19,768)
94.3%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166.1 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
29.2%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany – Urban[57]
180.6 cm (5 ft 11 in)
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
7.1%[58]
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
180.17 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.2%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Germany
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:25,112 f:25,560)
100.0%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Germany
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18–25 (N= m:2,501 f:2,227)
11.3%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Ghana
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,958, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Ghana
169.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29
14.7%
Measured
1987–1989
[60]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
18–49
56.3%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
8.5%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
178.06 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–26 (N= m:3,982, SD= m:7.05 cm (3 in))
13.7%
Measured
2006–2007
[61]

Greece
177.29 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Greece
178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Guatemala
N/A
147.3 cm (4 ft 10 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,773, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.3%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Guinea
N/A
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,563, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Haiti
N/A
158.6 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,932, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Honduras
N/A
152.0 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,219, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Hong Kong
171.7 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:468 f:453, SD= m:5.5 cm (2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
1.4%
Measured
2006
[62]

Hong Kong
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
University students, 19–20 (N= m:291 f:200, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.2 cm (2 in))
0.6%[63]
Measured
2005
[64]

Hungary
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Adults
N/A
Measured
2000s
[65]

Hungary
177.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:1,080, SD= m:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.7%
Measured
2005
[66]

India
164.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
20–49 (N= m:69,245 f:118,796)
69.8%
Measured
2005–2006
[67]

Iceland
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20–49
43.6%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

India – Rural
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
152.1 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.06
17+ (SD= m:7.0 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
72.1%
Measured
2007
[68]

India
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
152.6 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.09
20
3.0%
Predicted
2005–2006
[68]

Indonesia
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
147 cm (4 ft 10 in)
1.07
50+ (N= m:2,041 f:2,396, Median= m:158 cm (5 ft 2 in) f:147 cm (4 ft 10 in))
22.5%
Self-reported
1997
[69]

Iran
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
21+ (N= m/f:89,532, SD= m:8.05 cm (3 in) f:7.22 cm (3 in))
88.1%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iran
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.09
21–25
17.9%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iraq – Baghdad
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18–44 (N= m:700 f:800, SD= m:5.6 cm (2 in) f:16.0 cm (6 1⁄2 in))
76.3%
Measured
1999–2000
[71]

Ireland
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
20–49
61.8%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.10
20–24
10.4%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
176.60 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Ireland
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
21 (N= m:54 f:20–49, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.6 cm (3 in))
2.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Israel
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–21
9.7%
Measured
2010
[72]

Italy
176.5 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18
1.4%
Measured
1999–2004
[12][24][73]

Italy
174.48 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.6%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Italy
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
167.8 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:106 f:92, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Ivory Coast
170.1 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.67 cm (2 in))
14.6%
Measured
1985–1987
[60]

Ivory Coast
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Jamaica
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–74
71.4%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Japan
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20–49
47.2%
Measured
2005
[18]

Japan
172.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.70 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:1,708 f:1,559, SD= m:5.42 cm (2 in) f:5.30 cm (2 in))
7.2%
Measured
2004
[75]

Japan
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
17
1.2%
Measured
2013
[76]

Jordan
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,484, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.6%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Kazakhstan
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Self-reported
1999
[16]

Kenya
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
N/A
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Summary
2016
[77]

Kenya
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,856, SD= f:7.3 cm (3 in))
52.5%
Survey
2016
[16][77]

Korea, NorthNorth Korea
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.9 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Defectors, 20–39 (N= m/f:1,075)
46.4%
Measured
2005
[78]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20+ (N= m:2,750 f:2,445, Median= m:170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.40 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
96.5%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:378 f:298, Median= m:174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:160.5 cm (5 ft 3 in), SD= m:5.16 cm (2 in) f:5.26 cm (2 in))
8.0%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:339,716)
3.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea – Seoul
173.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:60,039)
0.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Kosovo - Prishtina
179.52 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.72 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
Conscripts, 18-20 (N= m:830 f:793, SD= m:7.02 cm, f:4.93 cm )
63.0%
Measured
2017
[81]

Kyrgyzstan
N/A
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,424, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.4%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Lesotho
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,879, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Liberia
N/A
157.3 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,281, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Lithuania
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:197 SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
14.7%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Urban
178.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:91 SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Rural
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:106 SD= m:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania
181.3 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18
2.1%
Measured
2001
[84]

Madagascar
N/A
154.3 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,024, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Malawi – Urban
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
16–60 (N= m:583 f:315, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:9.4 cm (3 1⁄2 in))
101.1%
Measured
2000
[85]

Malaysia
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
154.7 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Malay, 20–24 (N= m:749 f:893, Median= m:166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in) f:155 cm (5 ft 1 in), SD= m:6.46 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.04 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.7%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
Chinese, 20–24 (N= m:407 f:453, Median= m:169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in) f:158 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.98 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.72 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.1%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
169.1 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
155.4 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.09
Indian, 20–24 (N= m:113 f:140, Median= m:168 cm (5 ft 6 in) f:156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in), SD= m:5.84 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.18 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.2%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
Other indigenous, 20–24 (N= m:257 f:380, Median= m:163 cm (5 ft 4 in) f:152 cm (5 ft 0 in), SD= m:6.26 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.95 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Mali – Southern Mali
171.3 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Rural adults (N= m:121 f:320, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1992
[88]

Malta
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.06
18+
100.0%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Malta
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–34
17.5%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Mexico
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
154 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
69.4%
Measured
2006
[18]

Mexico
169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.08
20–24
14.5%
Measured
2006
[18]

Mexico
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Middle & upper classes, young adults
N/A
Measured
N/A
[90]

Mexico – Bajío
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Adults
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Mexico – Central
N/A
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
26–39
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Mexico – Morelos
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.08
18–76
1.6%[92]
Self-reported
1998–1999
[93]

Moldova
N/A
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,757, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
45.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Mongolia
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
25–34 (N= m:158 f:181)
27.6%
Measured
2006
[94]

Montenegro
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UCG,18–37 (N= m:178 f:107, SD= m:7.06 cm (3 in) f:5.27 cm (2 in))
3.2%[95]
Measured
2011
[24]

Morocco
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,334, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.7%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Mozambique
N/A
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,912, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.0%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Namibia
N/A
160.7 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,575, SD= f:7.1 cm (3 in))
50.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Nepal
163.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
150.8 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,280, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Netherlands
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Caucasians,16–18[96] (N= m:37 f:52, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
3.7%[97]
Measured
2003
[98]

Netherlands
182.70 cm (6 ft 0 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Netherlands
180.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20+
96.8%
Self-reported
2010
[9][29][99]

Netherlands
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
20–30
16.9%
Self-reported
2010
[99]

Netherlands
183.8 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
21 (N= m:74 f:50, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2009
[100]

New Zealand
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
56.9%
Measured
2007
[18]

New Zealand
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–24
9.1%
Measured
2007
[18]

Nicaragua
N/A
153.7 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49
54.1%
Self-reported
2001
[16]

Nigeria
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.04
18–74
98.6%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Nigeria
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.04
20–29 (N= m:139 f:76, SD= m:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
33.2%
Measured
2011
[101]

Norway
180.0 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:18,297)
36.0%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Vest-Agder
181.7 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:770)
1.33%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Oslo
179.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:1,297)
4.78%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway – Finnmark
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:218)
0.54%
Measured
2011
[102]

Norway
179.63 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Norway
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–85 (N= m:1534 f:1743)
93.6%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[9][29][103]

Norway
182.4 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.09
20–25 (SD= m:5.3 cm (2 in) f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.5%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[103]

Norway
181.6 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
26–35 (SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
17.0%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[103]

Peru
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20+
93.8%
Measured
2005
[104]

Philippines
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
N/A
18+
-
Measured
1980
[105]

Poland
178.7 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:846 f:1,126)
1.6%
Measured
2010
[106]

Portugal
173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:696)
1.5%
Measured
2008
[12][107]

Portugal
172.30 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Portugal
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
161 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–50
56.7%
Self-reported
2001
[18]

Portugal
173.7 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:87 f:106, SD= m:8.2 cm (3 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.9%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Qatar
170.8 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18
1.9%
Measured
2005
[24][108]

Rwanda
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,202, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Romania
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.10
N/A
N/A
Measured
2007
[109]

Russia
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.1 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
24
1.9%
Measured
2004
[24][110]

Samoa
N/A
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
N/A
18–28 (N= f:55 SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
32.6%
Measured
2004
[111]

Saudi Arabia
168.9 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
156.3 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18
3.0%
Measured
2010
[24][112]

Senegal
N/A
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,533, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Serbia
182.0 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UNS,18–30 (N= m:318 f:76, SD= m:6.74 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.88 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.7%[113]
Measured
2012
[114]

Singapore
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Chinese students at TP,16–18[115] (N= m:52 f:49, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
0.3%[116][117]
Measured
2003
[98]

Slovakia
179.4 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18
2.0%
Measured
2004
[118]

Slovenia – Ljubljana
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.4 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
19
0.2%[119]
Measured
2011
[120]

South Africa
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.06
19 (N= m:121 f:118)
3.6%
Measured
2003
[121]

Sri Lanka
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.4 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:1,768 f:2,709, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
100.0%
Measured
2005–2006
[122]

Sri Lanka
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.0 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–29 (N= m:312 f:427, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
30.7%
Measured
2005–2006
[122]

Spain
173.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
18–70 (N= m:1,298 [123][124] )
88.2%
Measured
2013–2014
[125][126]

Spain
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
18–70 (N= f:8,217 [127][128] )
83.5%
Measured
2007–2008
[29][124][125][128]

Spain
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
18–34 (N= m:554-1,061 [124][129] )
26.8%
Measured
2013–2014
[125][126][130][131]

Spain
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
18–19 (N= f:656 [128][132] )
2.4%
Measured
2007–2008
[124][125][128]

Spain
175.5 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
11.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Spain
174 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.07
20–49
57.0%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–24
7.5%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.2 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:111 f:94, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Swaziland
N/A
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,612, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.0%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Sweden
181.5 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–29
15.6%
Measured
2008
[133]

Sweden
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30
8.0%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Sweden
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–74
86.3%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[134]

Switzerland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19 (N= m:12,447, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in), SD= m:6.52 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Measured
2009
[135]

Switzerland
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–74
88.8%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[134]

Taiwan
171.4 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
17 (N= m:200 f:200)
1.7%
Measured
2011
[136][137][138]

Tanzania
N/A
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,033, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Thailand
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
STOU students, 15–19 (N= m:839 f:1,636, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.2%[139]
Self-reported
2005
[140]

Togo
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,728, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Tonga
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
40 (N= m:241 f:299)
1.5%
Measured
2001
[141]

Turkey
173.6 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20-22 (N= m:322 f:247)
8.3%
Measured
2007
[12][24][142]

Turkey – Ankara
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.10
18–59 (N= m:703 f:512, Median= m:169.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.5 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
5.1%[143]
Measured
2004–2006
[144]

Turkey – Ankara
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18–29 (N= m:390 f:163, Median= m:173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in), SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.0 cm (3 in))
2.0%[143]
Measured
2004–2006
[144]

Turkey
N/A
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:5.6 cm (2 in))
54.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Uganda
N/A
159.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,666, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

United Arab Emirates
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
[145]

United Kingdom – England
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:3,154 f:3,956)
103.2%[146]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – England
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m:415 f:611)
17.2%[146]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – Scotland
175.0 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:2,512 f:3,180, Median= m:174.8 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
103.0%[146]
Measured
2008
[147]

United Kingdom – Scotland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
25–34 (N= m:286 f:413, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.9 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
15.7%[146]
Measured
2008
[147]

United Kingdom – Wales
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
16+
103.2%[146]
Self-reported
2009
[148]

United States
175.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
All Americans, 20+ (N= m:5,232 f:5,547, Median= m:175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
69%
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States
176.4 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
All Americans, 20–29 (N= m:937 f:928, Median= m:176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) f:162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in))
13.9%
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – African Americans
177.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
African Americans, 20–39 (N= m:405 f:418, Median= m:177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
3.4%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Hispanic and Latino Americans
172.4 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Hispanic/Latino Americans, 20–39 (N= m:385 f:428, Median= m:172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
4.4%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Mexican Americans
172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Mexican Americans, 20–39 (N= m:233 f:247, Median= m:172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
2.8%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Asian Americans
172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Non-Hispanic Asians, 20–39 (N= m:260 f:272, Median= m:172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in))
1.3%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

United States – Non-Hispanic whites
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165.0 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
Non-Hispanic White Americans, 20–39 (N= m:715 f:689, Median= m:178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in))
17.1%[150]
Measured
2011–2014
[149]

Uruguay
170 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
Adults (N= m:2,249 f:2,114)
N/A
Measured
1990
[151]

Uzbekistan
N/A
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,635, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.6%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Vietnam
162.1 cm (5 ft 4 in)
152.2 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:5.39 cm (2 in) f:5.39 cm (2 in))
15.9%
Measured
1992–1993
[60]

Vietnam
165.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.2 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Students, 20–25 (N= m:1,000 f:1,000, SD= m:6.55 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.32 cm (2 in))
2.0%[152]
Measured
2006–2007
[153]

Zambia
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,091, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Zimbabwe
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,746, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
47.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ In this case, data that are representative of the majority of the country or region's adult population are those that factor in over 50% of the country or region's population aged 18 or over.

tag: ol


document_title: Cell theory

question_text: who discovered all living things are made of cells

text: Cell theory

text: Microscopes

text: The discovery of the cell was made possible through the invention of the microscope. In the first century BC, Romans were able to make glass, discovering that objects appeared to be larger under the glass. In Italy during the 12th century, Salvino D’Armate made a piece of glass fit over one eye, allowing for a magnification effect to that eye. The expanded use of lenses in eyeglasses in the 13th century probably led to wider spread use of simple microscopes (magnifying glasses) with limited magnification.[3] Compound microscope, which combine an objective lens with an eyepiece to view a real image achieving much higher magnification, first appeared in Europe around 1620[4][5] In 1665, Robert Hooke used a microscope about six inches long with two convex lenses inside and examined specimens under reflected light for the observations in his book Micrographia. Hooke also used a simpler microscope with a single lens for examining specimens with directly transmitted light, because this allowed for a clearer image.[6]

text: Extensive microscopic study was done by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, a draper who took the interest in microscopes after seeing one while on an apprenticeship in Amsterdam in 1648. At some point in his life before 1668, he was able to learn how to grind lenses. This eventually led to Leeuwenhoek making his own unique microscope. His were a single lens simple microscope, rather than a compound microscope. This was because he was able to use a single lens that was a small glass sphere but allowed for a magnification of 270x. This was a large progression since the magnification before was only a maximum of 50x. After Leeuwenhoek, there was not much progress for the microscopes until the 1850s, two hundred years later. Carl Zeiss, a German engineer who manufactured microscopes, began to make changes to the lenses used. But the optical quality did not improve until the 1880s when he hired Otto Schott and eventually Ernst Abbe.[7]

text: Optical microscopes can focus on objects the size of a wavelength or larger, giving restrictions still to advancement in discoveries with objects smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. Later in the 1920s, the electron microscope was developed, making it possible to view objects that are smaller than optical wavelengths, once again, changing the possibilities in science.[7]

text: Discovery of cells

text: The cell was first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, which can be found to be described in his book Micrographia. In this book, he gave 60 ‘observations’ in detail of various objects under a coarse, compound microscope.[6] One observation was from very thin slices of bottle cork. Hooke discovered a multitude of tiny pores that he named "cells". This came from the Latin word Cella, meaning ‘a small room’ like monks lived in and also Cellulae, which meant the six sided cell of a honeycomb. However, Hooke did not know their real structure or function.[8] What Hooke had thought were cells, were actually empty cell walls of plant tissues. With microscopes during this time having a low magnification, Hooke was unable to see that there were other internal components to the cells he was observing. Therefore, he did not think the "cellulae" were alive.[9] His cell observations gave no indication of the nucleus and other organelles found in most living cells. In Micrographia, Hooke also observed mould, bluish in color, found on leather. After studying it under his microscope, he was unable to observe “seeds” that would have indicated how the mould was multiplying in quantity. This led to Hooke suggesting that spontaneous generation, from either natural or artificial heat, was the cause. Since this was an old Aristotelian theory still accepted at the time, others did not reject it and was not disproved until Leeuwenhoek later discovers generation is achieved otherwise.[6]

text: Anton van Leeuwenhoek is another scientist who saw these cells soon after Hooke did. He made use of a microscope containing improved lenses that could magnify objects almost 300-fold, or 270x.[9] Under these microscopes, Leeuwenhoek found motile objects. In a letter to The Royal Society on October 9, 1676, he states that motility is a quality of life therefore these were living organisms. Over time, he wrote many more papers in which described many specific forms of microorganisms. Leeuwenhoek named these “animalcules,” which included protozoa and other unicellular organisms, like bacteria.[7] Though he did not have much formal education, he was able to identify the first accurate description of red blood cells and discovered bacteria after gaining interest in the sense of taste that resulted in Leeuwenhoek to observe the tongue of an ox, then leading him to study "pepper water" in 1676. He also found for the first time the sperm cells of animals and humans. Once discovering these types of cells, Leeuwenhoek saw that the fertilization process requires the sperm cell to enter the egg cell. This put an end to the previous theory of spontaneous generation. After reading letters by Leeuwenhoek, Hooke was the first to confirm his observations that were thought to be unlikely by other contemporaries.[6]

text: The cells in animal tissues were observed after plants were because the tissues were so fragile and susceptible to tearing, it was difficult for such thin slices to be prepared for studying. Biologists believed that there was a fundamental unit to life, but were unsure what this was. It would not be until over a hundred years later that this fundamental unit was connected to cellular structure and existence of cells in animals or plants.[10] This conclusion was not made until Henri Dutrochet. Besides stating “the cell is the fundamental element of organization”,[11] Dutrochet also claimed that cells were not just a structural unit, but also a physiological unit.

text: In 1804, Karl Rudolphi and J.H.F. Link were awarded the prize for "solving the problem of the nature of cells", meaning they were the first to prove that cells had independent cell walls by the Königliche Societät der Wissenschaft (Royal Society of Science), Göttingen.[12] Before, it had been thought that cells shared walls and the fluid passed between them this way.

text: Cell theory

text: Credit for developing cell theory is usually given to two scientists: Theodor Schwann and Matthias Jakob Schleiden.[13] While Rudolf Virchow contributed to the theory, he is not as credited for his attributions toward it. In 1839, Schleiden suggested that every structural part of a plant was made up of cells or the result of cells. He also suggested that cells were made by a crystallization process either within other cells or from the outside.[14] However, this was not an original idea of Schleiden. He claimed this theory as his own, though Barthelemy Dumortier had stated it years before him. This crystallization process is no longer accepted with modern cell theory. In 1839, Theodor Schwann states that along with plants, animals are composed of cells or the product of cells in their structures.[15] This was a major advancement in the field of biology since little was known about animal structure up to this point compared to plants. From these conclusions about plants and animals, two of the three tenets of cell theory were postulated.[10]

text: 1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells

text: 2. The cell is the most basic unit of life

text: Schleiden's theory of free cell formation through crystallization was refuted in the 1850s by Robert Remak, Rudolf Virchow, and Albert Kolliker.[7] In 1855, Rudolf Virchow added the third tenet to cell theory. In Latin, this tenet states Omnis cellula e cellula.[10] This translated to:

text: 3. All cells arise only from pre-existing cells

text: However, the idea that all cells come from pre-existing cells had in fact already been proposed by Robert Remak; it has been suggested that Virchow plagiarized Remak and did not give him credit.[16] Remak published observations in 1852 on cell division, claiming Schleiden and Schawnn were incorrect about generation schemes. He instead said that binary fission, which was first introduced by Dumortier, was how reproduction of new animal cells were made. Once this tenet was added, the classical cell theory was complete.

text: Modern interpretation

text: The generally accepted parts of modern cell theory include:

text:
All known living things are made up of one or more cells[17]
All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.
The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.[18]
The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.[citation needed]
Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.[citation needed]
Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm.[19]
All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species .[citation needed]

text: Modern version

text: The modern version of the cell theory includes the ideas that:

text:
Energy flow occurs within cells.[20]
Heredity information (DNA) is passed on from cell to cell.[20]
All cells have the same basic chemical composition.[20]

text: Opposing concepts in cell theory: history and background

text: The cell was first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665 using a microscope. The first cell theory is credited to the work of Theodor Schwann and Matthias Jakob Schleiden in the 1830s. In this theory the internal contents of cells were called protoplasm and described as a jelly-like substance, sometimes called living jelly. At about the same time, colloidal chemistry began its development, and the concepts of bound water emerged. A colloid being something between a solution and a suspension, where Brownian motion is sufficient to prevent sedimentation. The idea of a semipermeable membrane, a barrier that is permeable to solvent but impermeable to solute molecules was developed at about the same time. The term osmosis originated in 1827 and its importance to physiological phenomena realized, but it wasn’t until 1877, when the botanist Pfeffer proposed the membrane theory of cell physiology. In this view, the cell was seen to be enclosed by a thin surface, the plasma membrane, and cell water and solutes such as a potassium ion existed in a physical state like that of a dilute solution. In 1889 Hamburger used hemolysis of erythrocytes to determine the permeability of various solutes. By measuring the time required for the cells to swell past their elastic limit, the rate at which solutes entered the cells could be estimated by the accompanying change in cell volume. He also found that there was an apparent nonsolvent volume of about 50% in red blood cells and later showed that this includes water of hydration in addition to the protein and other nonsolvent components of the cells.

text: Evolution of the membrane and bulk phase theories

text: Two opposing concepts developed within the context of studies on osmosis, permeability, and electrical properties of cells.[21] The first held that these properties all belonged to the plasma membrane whereas the other predominant view was that the protoplasm was responsible for these properties. The membrane theory developed as a succession of ad-hoc additions and changes to the theory to overcome experimental hurdles. Overton (a distant cousin of Charles Darwin) first proposed the concept of a lipid (oil) plasma membrane in 1899. The major weakness of the lipid membrane was the lack of an explanation of the high permeability to water, so Nathansohn (1904) proposed the mosaic theory. In this view, the membrane is not a pure lipid layer, but a mosaic of areas with lipid and areas with semipermeable gel. Ruhland refined the mosaic theory to include pores to allow additional passage of small molecules. Since membranes are generally less permeable to anions, Leonor Michaelis concluded that ions are adsorbed to the walls of the pores, changing the permeability of the pores to ions by electrostatic repulsion. Michaelis demonstrated the membrane potential (1926) and proposed that it was related to the distribution of ions across the membrane.[22] Harvey and Danielli (1939) proposed a lipid bilayer membrane covered on each side with a layer of protein to account for measurements of surface tension. In 1941 Boyle & Conway showed that the membrane of frog muscle was permeable to both K+ and Cl−, but apparently not to Na+, so the idea of electrical charges in the pores was unnecessary since a single critical pore size would explain the permeability to K+, H+, and Cl− as well as the impermeability to Na+, Ca+, and Mg2+. Over the same time period, it was shown (Procter & Wilson, 1916) that gels, which do not have a semipermeable membrane, would swell in dilute solutions. Loeb (1920) also studied gelatin extensively, with and without a membrane, showing that more of the properties attributed to the plasma membrane could be duplicated in gels without a membrane. In particular, he found that an electrical potential difference between the gelatin and the outside medium could be developed, based on the H+ concentration. Some criticisms of the membrane theory developed in the 1930s, based on observations such as the ability of some cells to swell and increase their surface area by a factor of 1000. A lipid layer cannot stretch to that extent without becoming a patchwork (thereby losing its barrier properties. Such criticisms stimulated continued studies on protoplasm as the principal agent determining cell permeability properties. In 1938, Fischer and Suer proposed that water in the protoplasm is not free but in a chemically combined form—the protoplasm represents a combination of protein, salt and water—and demonstrated the basic similarity between swelling in living tissues and the swelling of gelatin and fibrin gels. Dimitri Nasonov (1944) viewed proteins as the central components responsible for many properties of the cell, including electrical properties. By the 1940s, the bulk phase theories were not as well developed as the membrane theories. In 1941, Brooks & Brooks published a monograph, "The Permeability of Living Cells", which rejects the bulk phase theories.

text: Emergence of the steady-state membrane pump concept

text: With the development of radioactive tracers, it was shown that cells are not impermeable to Na+. This was difficult to explain with the membrane barrier theory, so the sodium pump was proposed to continually remove Na+ as it permeates cells. This drove the concept that cells are in a state of dynamic equilibrium, constantly using energy to maintain ion gradients. In 1935, Karl Lohmann discovered ATP and its role as a source of energy for cells, so the concept of a metabolically-driven sodium pump was proposed. The tremendous success of Hodgkin, Huxley, and Katz in the development of the membrane theory of cellular membrane potentials, with differential equations that modeled the phenomena correctly, provided even more support for the membrane pump hypothesis.

text: The modern view of the plasma membrane is of a fluid lipid bilayer that has protein components embedded within it. The structure of the membrane is now known in great detail, including 3D models of many of the hundreds of different proteins that are bound to the membrane. These major developments in cell physiology placed the membrane theory in a position of dominance and stimulated the imagination of most physiologists, who now apparently accept the theory as fact—there are, however, a few dissenters.[citation needed]

text: The reemergence of the bulk phase theories

text: In 1956, Afanasy S. Troshin published a book, The Problems of Cell Permeability, in Russian (1958 in German, 1961 in Chinese, 1966 in English) in which he found that permeability was of secondary importance in determination of the patterns of equilibrium between the cell and its environment. Troshin showed that cell water decreased in solutions of galactose or urea although these compounds did slowly permeate cells. Since the membrane theory requires an impermanent solute to sustain cell shrinkage, these experiments cast doubt on the theory. Others questioned whether the cell has enough energy to sustain the sodium/potassium pump. Such questions became even more urgent as dozens of new metabolic pumps were added as new chemical gradients were discovered.

text: In 1962, Gilbert Ling became the champion of the bulk phase theories and proposed his association-induction hypothesis of living cells.

text: Types of cells

text: Cells can be subdivided into the following subcategories:

text:
Prokaryotes: Prokaryotes are relatively small cells surrounded by the plasma membrane, with a characteristic cell wall that may differ in composition depending on the particular organism.[23] Prokaryotes lack a nucleus (although they do have circular or linear DNA) and other membrane-bound organelles (though they do contain ribosomes). The protoplasm of a prokaryote contains the chromosomal region that appears as fibrous deposits under the microscope, and the cytoplasm.[23] Bacteria and Archaea are the two domains of prokaryotes.
Eukaryotes: Eukaryotic cells are also surrounded by the plasma membrane, but on the other hand, they have distinct nuclei bound by a nuclear membrane or envelope. Eukaryotic cells also contain membrane-bound organelles, such as (mitochondria, chloroplasts, lysosomes, rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulum, vacuoles).[24] In addition, they possess organized chromosomes which store genetic material.[citation needed]

text: Animals have evolved a greater diversity of cell types in a multicellular body (100–150 different cell types), compared with 10–20 in plants, fungi, and protoctista.[25]


document_title: Minute Maid Park

question_text: how big is the screen at minute maid park

text: Minute Maid Park

text: History[edit]

text: Union Station and pre-ballpark era[edit]

text: In 1909, during the time when West End Park was Houston's premier ballpark, the Houston Belt and Terminal Railway Company commissioned the design of a new union station for the city from New York City-based architects Warren and Wetmore. The location called for the demolition of several structures of Houston prominence. Horace Baldwin Rice's residence and Adath Yeshurun Congregation's synagogue among other structures were removed.[17]

text: With an original estimated cost of $1 million USD, Union Station was constructed by the American Construction Company for an eventual total of five times that amount.[18] Exterior walls were constructed of granite, limestone, and terracotta, while the interior used an extensive amount of marble. It was completed and opened on March 1, 1911. At the time, Houston, with seventeen railways, was considered the main railroad hub of the Southern United States.[19] This is also evident by the Seal of Houston, which prominently features a locomotive. Two more floors were added the following year.[20]

text: The station served as the main inter-city passenger terminal for Houston for over seven decades thereafter. Passenger rail declined greatly after World War II, and the last regularly-scheduled train, the Lone Star, moved its service to Houston's current Amtrak station on July 31, 1974. With this move, the building effectively became abandoned. On November 10, 1977, the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service.

text: Planning and funding[edit]

text: In August 1995, Astros owner Drayton McLane, then leasing the Astrodome from Harris County, commented to the Houston Chronicle that he was not in the market for a new ballpark. In reference to Pittsburgh's Three Rivers Stadium and Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium, McLane noted, "[...] I remember when those were built in the 1970s and those were as good a stadiums as there were. They were the most modern stadiums in the world, and now they're saying they're all bad. That they can't make a go of it without a new stadium. It helps, but there are other things involved."[21]

text: Later that year, Houston's NFL franchise and joint-tenant of the Astrodome, the Houston Oilers, announced that they were leaving to Nashville, Tennessee in order to have a new stadium built for the team there. Citing a lack of adequate luxury boxes, in October, Astros Vice-President Bob McClaren claimed that renovations to the Astrodome would help increase revenue.[22] Drayton McLane pointed toward Astrodome renovations as necessary saying "It's 30 years old and not a lot of money has been spent to remodel it."[23] According to the organization, the team was in danger of being sold to a Virginia businessman who was expected to move the Astros to Washington D.C. because of poor revenue.

text: In June 1996, University of Houston alumnus, BMC Software and San Diego Padres owner, John J. Moores, who wanted to own the next NFL franchise in Houston, met with Texas State Senator Mario Gallegos, Jr., and other local Hispanic leaders in regards to the future of a football-only Astrodome and a new baseball-only ballpark in Downtown Houston.[24] Meanwhile, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels pieced together a plan to build a new ballpark next to the Astrodome in the Astrodomain. The Astros echoed the Astrodomain location sentiment because they believed construction time would be shorter.[25] Eckels, who convinced then Mayor Bob Lanier of the lack of viability for the ballpark in a downtown location, was quoted as saying, "They keep telling me about these miracles in other cities, but it doesn't work in Houston [...] If we are going to put this stadium some place, let's stick with a proven place."[26] This plan was considered to be nearly finalized when the Astros and Harris County agreed to a $250 million USD county-funded stadium whose overrun costs would be funded by the Astros.[27]

text: In August 1996, Houston's Union Station received a $2 million USD grant from the Texas Transportation Commission for renovation in a separate project.[28] Plans for the new ballpark's location drastically changed by September mostly in response to Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay's input and pledge to substantially contribute to funding if placed downtown.[29] It was at this time that the Union Station location was proposed by Lay. Upon an agreement between all of the leadership entities, the idea of a retractable roof stadium was confirmed for the new ballpark. A November referendum was planned for Harris County residents to approve the deal.

text: The Harris County referendum that took place on November 5, 1996, to help fund the ballpark passed by a narrow margin of 51% to 49%.[30] In response to the referendum, during the 75th Texas Legislature Texas State Senator John Whitmire of Houston sponsored a bill supported by five of the six area Harris County senators that would create the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority.[31] With companion House Bill 92 authored by Houston-born Representative Kim Brimer voted upon and adopted by both chambers, the authorization for creation of a sports authority was approved.[32] It was signed into law by Governor George W. Bush on June 2, 1997.[33] The Harris County-Houston Sports Authority would assist in financing for the new ballpark as well as allow for renovation of the Astrodome by allowing for special county-wide taxation of rental cars, tickets, parking, and hotel use.

text: In June 1997, with the ability to create a sports authority signed into law, concurrent votes of the Harris County Commissioners' Court and the Houston City Council to establish the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on effective September 1, 1997.[34] Its chairman and twelve other directors were jointly appointed by the Mayor of Houston and Harris County Judge. The institution remains in existence today.

text: The ballpark was named "Enron Field" after a $100 million, 30-year naming rights deal was made with Enron on April 7, 1999.[35]

text: Design and construction[edit]

text: Early stadium sketches from Kansas City-based Populous (then HOK Sport) using the working title "The Ballpark at Union Station" were released to the public on October 11, 1996, where Astros President Tal Smith was open about his suggestions for the stadium including the location of the flagpole in center field and a traditional dirt path from the pitcher's mound to home plate.[36][37] While the dirt path was not implemented, the flagpole idea became known as "Tal's Hill" and remained a signature feature of the ballpark until 2016.

text: Union Station's main concourse was preserved and renovated as the ballpark's main lobby.

text: In late 1997, it was announced that local Brown & Root would manage construction of the stadium, while Populous with Walter P. Moore would design it.[38] The electrification of Minute Maid Park's retractable roof was developed by VAHLE, Inc.[39]

text: Ground broke for The Ballpark at Union Station on October 30, 1997.[40] Its groundbreaking ceremony was attended by Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, Astros owner Drayton McLane, Harris County Judge Robert Eckles, Harris County Commissioner El Franco Lee, and Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Chairman Jack Rains.

text: Statues of longtime Astros players Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio are located in the exterior of the ballpark in a space known as The Plaza at Minute Maid Park. The two former teammates are depicted playing baseball with each other. The plaza also displays pennants for all Astros division and league championships as well as several plaques to commemorate notable Astros and their achievements.

text: Opening and current use[edit]

text: The ballpark was first christened "Enron Field" on April 7, 2000, with naming rights sold to the Houston energy and financial trading company in a 30-year, $100 million deal. However, Astros management faced a public relations problem when the energy corporation went bankrupt in 2001 due to a financial scandal. Quickly wanting to distance themselves from Enron, Astros ownership asked to prematurely end naming rights, but Enron refused.[41] On February 5, 2002, Astros ownership filed a motion with the court overseeing the company's bankruptcy to force Enron to make an immediate decision on the matter. By February 27, the two entities agreed to end the naming rights, and settled with the Astros paying $2.1 million to Enron. Without a naming rights agreement in place, the ballpark became officially known as "Astros Field".[42]

text: In June 2002, it was announced that the Astros had sold naming rights of the ballpark to locally based Coca-Cola subsidiary Minute Maid for $100 million over 30 years.[43] Its official name was then changed to "Minute Maid Park".

text: During its days as Enron Field, it was also dubbed "Ten-Run" or "Home Run" Field due to its cozy left-field dimensions. In keeping with this theme while paying homage to its current sponsor, the nickname "The Juice Box" is colloquially used today.[44] The dubbing of the park as an extreme hitter-friendly park has been called into question in recent years. The 2009 season saw the park ranked 24th out of 30 Major League parks in terms of runs scored in the park and ten other ballparks saw more home runs hit.[45] The long center-field and left-center-field dimensions (before the 2016-17 renovations) neutralized the park, and Minute Maid's batting park factor is consistently very near average. However, in 2014, it was ranked the 12th-most batter-friendly ballpark.[46]

text: Alterations[edit]

text: In 2004, the Astros launched Wi-Fi throughout the ballpark, allowing fans to use the Internet while attending a game for a fee.[47] In addition, the ballpark was the first major sports facility to use a separate video board exclusively for closed captioning for the hearing impaired of PA system and video board content, rather than appearing along the bottom of the main board.

text: In 2006, the Chick-fil-A cows were unveiled on the foul poles, saying EAT MOR FOWL, and the cows have Astros caps on. If an Astros player hits the pole, all fans in attendance get a coupon for a free chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A. Hunter Pence is the first and second Astro to hit the left field "Fowl Pole" when he did it twice in the 2007 season. Ty Wigginton became the third Astro to hit the left field pole on September 16, 2007. Kazuo Matsui hit the right field foul pole on August 3, 2009, with a two-run homer in the sixth inning to beat the Giants. Carlos Lee hit the left field pole on July 28, 2010, giving the Astros an 8–1 win against the Cubs. Two days later, Jeff Keppinger hit the left field pole to help the Astros win, 5–0, against the Brewers.

text: After the 2008 season, the Astros' groundskeepers began installing 2.3 acres (9,300 m2) of a new turfgrass playing surface at Minute Maid Park.[48] The Astros also became one of the first to use the new Chemgrass, later known as AstroTurf after its first well-publicized use at the Houston Astrodome in 1966.

text: In honor of longtime Astros broadcaster Milo Hamilton, the City of Houston officially renamed a portion of the Ballpark District to the "Hall of Fame District", and the portion of Hamilton Avenue that runs within that district to "Milo Hamilton Way" on April 8, 2009.[49]

text: For the 2011 season, the park added a large Daktronics HD screen nicknamed "El Grande" replacing the original one in center field. At 54 feet high and 124 feet wide, it is the fourth largest scoreboard in Major League Baseball, behind Safeco Field (home of the Seattle Mariners), Progressive Field (home of the Cleveland Indians), and Kaufmann Stadium (home of the Kansas City Royals). The old screen was taken out and replaced by billboards. Additionally, a smaller HD screen was added on the far left field wall. The ring of advertisement screens around the park were replaced in favor of HD ribbon boards.[7]

text: After the Astros reverted to their original colors and logo in 2013, much of Minute Maid Park was repainted to navy and orange from brick red. Signs with the previous logo and colors were also replaced.[50] More than 4,500 US gallons (17,000 l) of paint were used and over 1,000 signs were replaced.

text: In June 2015 the Astros announced that Tal's Hill would be removed in a major renovation project during the 2015-2016 offseason, to be replaced with additional seating, concessions, and escalators for fans.[51] This would result in center field dimensions of 436 feet (then the longest in MLB) being reduced to 409 feet. In addition, seating sections 256, 257, and 258 in the outfield mezzanine would be removed. However, the project had to be postponed due to the Astros' unexpected American League Wild Card championship and subsequent postseason appearance, along with the stadium's offseason event schedule.[52] The renovation was completed during the 2016-2017 offseason.[53]

text: Major events[edit]

text:
On October 9, 2005, Minute Maid Park hosted the longest postseason game in Major League Baseball history to date, both in terms of time and number of innings. The Astros defeated the Atlanta Braves 7–6 in a game lasting 18 innings, which took 5 hours and 50 minutes to play.[54]
On October 25, 2005, Minute Maid Park hosted the first World Series game ever played in Texas, and the longest World Series game ever played, which the Astros lost to the eventual World Series champion Chicago White Sox 7–5 in 14 innings; this game lasted 5 hours and 41 minutes.[55] The following night, the White Sox won their 3rd title—and first in 88 years—at Minute Maid Park.
On September 30, 2007, in Craig Biggio's last game of his career, Minute Maid Park hit the highest attendance in its 8-year history by selling 43,823 tickets, 107% of its capacity.[56]
On April 5, 2010, Opening Day of 2010, Minute Maid Park surpassed its highest attendance total once again by selling 43,836 tickets, 13 more tickets than its previous record.[57]
The Astros transferred to the American League for the 2013 season, resulting in the designated hitter rule coming into effect at Minute Maid Park. The last pitcher to bat at an MLB game in Houston was Astros pitcher Bud Norris.
In his third start as an Astro, pitcher Mike Fiers threw the stadium's first no-hitter in a 3-0 victory over the Los Angeles Dodgers on August 21, 2015.[58]
In mid-October 2017 the Astros hosted and won the American League Championship Series against the N.Y. Yankees.
In late October 2017 the Astros will host three World Series games against the Dodgers.

text: Non-baseball events[edit]

text: Soccer[edit]

text: While primarily a baseball venue, Minute Maid Park can adequately host sports such as soccer and both codes of rugby. The venue can also play host to large-scale music concerts. It is not large enough to comfortably accommodate American football.

text: Its debut as a soccer venue happened during the 2006 edition of the CONCACAF Champions Cup. The stadium hosted the first leg of the quarterfinal between Portmore United of Jamaica (the "home" team) and Club América of Mexico.[59]

text:
Date
Winning Team
Result
Losing Team
Tournament
Spectators

February 22, 2006
 Club América
2–1
 Portmore United
2006 CONCACAF Champions' Cup Quarterfinal
12,988

text: Concerts[edit]

text: Paul McCartney, Jay Z, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Nelly, Tim McGraw, Staind and Madonna have all performed at Minute Maid Park.

text:
Date
Artist
Opening act(s)
Tour / Concert name
Attendance
Revenue
Notes

November 16, 2008
Madonna
Paul Oakenfold
Sticky & Sweet Tour
41,498 / 41,498
$5,170,100

November 5, 2011
Taylor Swift
—
Speak Now World Tour
42,095 / 42,095
$3,435,756
Nelly was the special guest.

November 14, 2012
Paul McCartney
—
On the Run Tour
—
—

July 18, 2014
Beyoncé
Jay Z
—
On the Run Tour
40,103 / 40,103
$5,235,438

September 9, 2015
Taylor Swift
Vance Joy
Shawn Mendes
The 1989 World Tour
40,122 / 40,122
$5,202,196
Originally planned to take place on October 13, but was moved backwards to avoid any potential scheduling conflict with the Houston Astros potentially making the 2015 Major League Baseball postseason.[60] Wiz Khalifa was the special guest.[61]

November 3, 2018
Ed Sheeran
TBA
÷ Tour
TBA
TBA

text: TV[edit]

text: The nationally syndicated TV talk show Rachael Ray held a mass wedding at the park following Hurricane Ike for 40 couples who were unable to get married after a company they paid to hold the weddings went bankrupt. Comedian Jeffrey Ross served as best man for all 40 couples. The ceremony was aired as part of a special episode of the talk show on November 21, 2008.[62]

text: Other events[edit]

text: The stadium also is the host of the Houston College Classic college baseball tournament, part of the winter fan festival held in February. The tournament features local schools the University of Houston and Rice University every year, a pair of major conference schools, alternating between Big 12 members University of Texas at Austin, Texas Tech University, Baylor University and SEC member Texas A&M University, as well as two other teams from around the country.

text: On May 9, 2015, Canelo Alvarez fought James Kirkland in the first boxing match fought in the stadium. Alvarez defeated Kirkland via knockout in the third round.

text: The University of Houston–Downtown also holds their commencement ceremony in Minute Maid Park.[63]

text: Minute Maid Park hosted a cricket match on November 11, 2015, the second in a series of three Cricket All-Stars matches played by retired greats of the game.[64] Shane Warne's Warne's Warriors clinched the series 2-0. Keeping with the naming conventions from the previous match at Minute Maid Park, the ends were named after Nolan Ryan and José Cruz, two players that have their numbers retired by the Astros.

text: On January 30, 2017, the stadium was the site of opening festivities for Super Bowl LI, to be held at nearby NRG Stadium. The event included the popular Media Day where players on the New England Patriots and Atlanta Falcons conducted interviews.[65]

text: In April 2017, the park hosted the final rounds of the Houston leg of the FIRST Championship. To avoid damaging the field while the Astros were in season, the competition fields were built on a stage over the infield dirt between first and third base.[66]

text: Features[edit]

text: In dramatic contrast to the Astrodome, the most pitching-oriented stadium in Major League Baseball for most of its existence, Minute Maid Park is known[by whom?] for being particularly hitter-friendly down the lines, especially in left field where it is only 315 ft (96 m) to the Crawford Boxes, though the wall there is 19 feet (5.8 m) tall. In a challenge to home run hitters, former Astros owner Drayton McLane's office window, located in the old Union Station and directly above the Crawford Boxes, is made of glass and a sign below the window is marked 422 ft (135 m) from home plate.

text: In contrast to the ease of hitting a home run to the Crawford Boxes, it was quite difficult to hit a ball out in center field, as the deep-centre wall was 436 ft (133 m) from home plate and had held the top spot for active MLB ballparks for the deepest center field of any park in baseball.[67] Fielding is a challenge there as well, due to the 90-foot (27 m) wide center field incline called Tal's Hill, for former team president Tal Smith, an element taken from Crosley Field and other historic ballparks, and the flagpole in play, an element taken from Yankee Stadium before its remodeling in the mid-'70s and Tiger Stadium among others. Milwaukee Brewers player Richie Sexson once hit a ball off the flagpole. There was a mark there until the 2011 season, when the pole was repainted. The hill and the flagpole were scheduled to be removed following the 2015 season,[68] but remained in place due to an unexpected playoff run.[69] The hill and flagpole remained in place until the end of the 2016 season.[70]

text: The visiting team's bullpen is housed entirely in the exterior left field wall, next to the Crawford Boxes, making it one of the few bullpens in Major League ballparks to be completely indoors. Although windows in the outfield fence offer a view into and from the bullpen, its entrance is actually built into the side of the Crawford Boxes.

text: While Crosley Field's infamous left field terrace, which was half as steep (only 15°) as Tal's Hill (30°), was a natural feature of the site on which the park was located, Tal's Hill is purely decorative. Both features have been held in equal disdain by center fielders. This hill has caused some of the most replayed catches in recent baseball history, and plenty of controversy as well. Lance Berkman said, "If the ball rolls onto the hill, it's not steep enough to roll back, so you have to go get it. Then there's the chance of running into the flagpole that's on it and getting hurt." Fans started an online petition to remove the hill and flagpole, though the petition has since been discontinued. On June 4, 2015, the Astros announced that they would be removing Tal's Hill as part of a $15 million renovation for the 2016 season. The center field fence was to be moved in from 436 feet (which from 2000 to 2016 was the longest in baseball) to 409 feet (125 m) from home plate, but the center field renovations were delayed until after the 2016 season, due at least in part to the 2015 playoffs cutting into planned construction time.[71]

text: The ballpark features 19,201 seats on the lower level,[72] 7,132 seats on the second level,[72] 880 seats on the suite level,[72] and 13,750 seats on the upper level.[72]

text: A concourse above Tal's Hill features the "Phillips 66 Home Run Porch" in left-center field that is over the field of play, and features a classic petrol pump that displays the total number of Astros home runs hit since the park opened.

text: The stadium can be fully air-conditioned when required.

text: Transportation access[edit]

text: Minute Maid Park is located in Downtown Houston in a centralized area of the city, and accessible via a short driving distance on Interstate 10 (Katy Freeway/East Freeway), Interstate 69 (Southwest Freeway/Eastex Freeway), and Interstate 45 (Gulf Freeway/North Freeway). Street parking, garage parking, and private lot parking are available, with an estimated 25,000 spots within walking distance to the ballpark. Taxi cabs and pedicabs are also commonly found near the surrounding ballpark area.

text: Public transportation allows for accessibility via bus or light rail service. The METRORail light rail system has a stop located one block south of Minute Maid Park, Convention District Station, served by the Green and Purple lines. The Red Line also serves the ballpark at Preston Station, six blocks to the west.

text: Hurricane Harvey[edit]

text: In 2017, the park was completely flooded on the ground floor as a result of Hurricane Harvey. The playing surface had to be completely rebuilt before the Astros could return from playing their home games in St. Petersburg, Florida.[73]