Hallo, liebe Exil-Leoniden.
Mir brennt eine Grammatikfrage unter den Nägeln. Hier kommt der Problemsatz:

"During respiration, single electron transfer unavoidably leads to the production of reactive oxygen species, which would damage all cell constituents if the cell were not equipped with an elaborate detoxification system."

Instinktiv will ich da aus "if the cell were not equipped" ein "if the cells were not equipped" machen, und das würde sicher auch gehen. Aber korrekt ist doch auch meine Version, oder? Mir wurde das von einer Kollegin mit "if the cell was not equipped" korrigiert, was ich für falsch halte.
Ich wäre dankbar für Kommentare, gerne mit einer kurzen einfachen Begründung, aber ein einfaches "X ist richtig" würde auch schon helfen :-)

Sagen will ich, dass die Zelle geschädigt würde, wenn sie nicht dieses tolle Schutzsystem hätte.

You answered your own question Mattes with your final comment: the cell singular for one, cells would refer to cells in general rather than one specific one. So (and you won't like this) neither is wrong, they just mean slightly different things.

"If the cell were equipped" oder "if the cell was equipped"?

I guess I'll change it into "if the cells were not equipped", lest I confuse the non-native readers of the text.

Wow, you edited your answer while I was writing mine!

Mattes: I think cells is best anyway, since persumably all the cells of that type are equipped thusly and not just one.

@Selkie: Not really. *switch to LEO mode again*
Fast jede Zelle des menschlichen Körpers atmet (nur rote Blutkörperchen nicht), es handelt sich also um ein sehr allgemeines zellbiologisches Problem. Dieses Allgemeine, d.h. "jede Zelle braucht diese Schutzmechanismen" würde man durch "the cell" etwas besser ausdrücken, denke ich.

No, I disagree. The cells of the human body, the cells of the liver, etc. every cell or type of cell, but the cells in general within an organism of some type, since there are many different types.

Ich werde ja sowieso "the cells" schreiben, aber da wir hier in einem Sprachforum sind, mache ich noch einen Versuch, das auszudiskutieren.

Bei "...which would damage all cell constituents if the cells were not equipped with an elaborate detoxification system" würde ich eher die Frage "Which cells?" stellen, als bei "...which would damage all cell constituents if the cell were not equipped with an elaborate detoxification system." Bei "the cell" wäre mir intuitiv deutlicher, dass jede Zelle so ausgestattet ist, bei "the cells" würde ich nachfragen "All cells?".

Vielleicht ist das auch nur auf Deutsch so?
"Für die Zelle ist ein Schutzmechanismus lebenswichtig." vs. "Für die Zellen ist ein Schutzmechanismus lebenswichtig." vs. "Für Zellen ist ein Schutzmechanismus lebenswichtig."

Vielleicht wäre das ein Ausweg: "...which would damage all cell constituents if cells were not equipped with an elaborate detoxification system." ?

I would leave off the article in the first sentence: if cells were not equipped with..., (unless you mean a very specifiic type of cells such as those in the liver) just as you did in the final sentence. I do think German and English differ here, the cell is very specific in English and does not capture the meaning of "die Zelle" as used in your German example.

Super, jetzt haben wir's.

I agree with Selkie, both "the cell" and "the cells" are possible. But I disagree in that I actually prefer the singular, as in the original:

"During respiration, single electron transfer unavoidably leads to the production of reactive oxygen species, which would damage all cell constituents if the cell were not equipped with an elaborate detoxification system."

The way I read it, the phrase "which would damage all cell constituents" can be paraphrased as "which would damage all constituents of a cell", and thus leads naturally to the conclusion, "if the cell were not equipped..."

I agree with Martin. There is a difference in meaning here, depending on whether you write cell or cells - and the singular conforms to the meaning of the German original, which is talking of the constituents of a particular cell, and not cells in general.

But the process Mattes was describing repiration, as he points out, is common to all but the red blood cells, and cell or cells would depend on the text before and after: if it is about a specialized cell, cell, body cells then cells. I don't think a general answer is possible without the rest of the text.

Vielen Dank fürs Weiterdiskutieren.

Ich stelle jetzt den ganzen Abschnitt rein:

Mitochondria are the main source of biochemically utilizable energy in almost every cell type of the human body. ATP is produced through oxidative phosphorylation by five large protein complexes inserted into the mitochondrial inner membrane. During the transfer of high-energy electrons from nutrients to molecular oxygen, single electron transfer unavoidably leads to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which would damage all cell constituents if cells were not equipped with an elaborate multi-layered enzymatic and non-enzymatic detoxification system. The generation of cells without a functioning OXPHOS system by depleting the small mitochondrial genome (mtDNA), encoding 13 essential subunits of the ETC, both in cell culture and in vivo, has demonstrated that ATP synthesis can be replaced, at least transiently, by alternative anaerobic energy metabolism.

Macht das Euch Natives die Entscheidung leichter? Würde mich über weitere Kommentare freuen (so noch jemand hier vorbei kommt, jetzt, wo LEO wieder geht).

Hi Mattes. Having translated this sort of text for a few decades, my observation on German vs. English usage for generalisations is that German uses singular, whereas English uses plural with no article, just as you have finally decided to do. So, beim Menschen, bei der Ratte, etc. becomes "in humans", "in rats" etc.
BTW: have you considered "temporarily" or "for a short time" instead of "transiently"? It could well be that "transiently" is a term in the art and I'm no expert, but it just struck me as a bit odd, so I hope you don't mind my asking.
Also I can't see why there's a comma before "encoding". But, as I say, I'm no expert!

Hallo, Anne, danke für die Kommentare. "Temporarily" wäre wohl besser gewesen als "transiently", weil es nicht um einen Übergang geht, da hast du recht. Das Komma passt da aber immer noch hin für mich, weil ich "encoding 13 essential subunits of the ETC" als eingeschobene Erklärung verstehe.

P.S.:"Having translated this sort of text for a few decades" vs. "But, as I say, I'm no expert!"
That strikes _me_ as a bit odd ;-)

types of cells in the human body
Are the protein complexes (ATPases?) perhaps anchored to the inner membrane, rather then inserted into, which would indicate that some process placed them there when they were not there before? Do they penetrate it?

I confess I cannot quite understand the first part of the last sentence. Were these cells created through genetic manipulation, ie by depleting the small mito. genome? I do not understand the connection between "the generation" and "by depleting" which sounds like a causal action, but what is the result?

Hallo Selkie.
Die Proteinkomplexe sitzen wirklich in der Membran, mit Teilen, die nach innen und nach außen ragen, und werden da aktiv hinbefördert und inseriert, nachdem sie woanders gemacht worden sind.

Indem man die mitochondriale DNA (durch Behandlung der Zellen mit einer Chemikalie) entfernt, beraubt man die Zellen der Möglichkeit, die 13 Proteine herzustellen, die von der mtDNA kodiert werden. Daraufhin funktioniert die Atmung nicht mehr. Man hat also Zellen hergestellt, die nicht mehr atmen können.

Falls du noch Fragen hast, nur zu :-)

Hi Mattes! imo, the final sentence is missing a verb then, such as "created by removing/destroying etc. the mito. DNA" that would make the causal relationship clear.