Talk:Monosaccharide nomenclature

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I wonder if there is a typo in the definition of alpha and beta being based on the similarity or opposite configurations at the anomeric center and the most distant stereogenic center. My software (and a manual check) shows that the C1 for alpha glucose has the S configuration and C5 has the opposite R configuration. Also, it would be helpful to label the drawings with both the configuration (R or S) and the atom number. [email protected] 199.133.191.32 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a typo. I've updated the paragraph to be more clear; but you need to draw the sugar as a Fischer projection to determine this (see the IUPAC link to 2-Carb6.2, it has some diagrams). You can't really name anomers by R/S; they're two different conventions.--Glycoform (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what we have here is not the IUPAC's definition ---which as @Glycoform mentions, requires one to draw and analyze the Fischer diagram---, but the definition from "Essentials of Glycobiology", 4th edition.

And that definition is not consistent with the depicted molecule: that diagram shows alpha-D-glucopyranose, where C1 has S configuration, C5 has R configuration (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#/media/File:ALPHA-D-Glucopyranose_V.1.png), but according to the definition here it should be beta-D-glucopyranose, since their configurations are different.

I think there's a mistake on that book, and we are replicating the mistake here. Jerojasro (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter article describes only the naming system of simple sugars, for which the section Monosaccharide § Structure and nomenclature already exists. I propose that content from the latter be copyedited thoroughly, then moved to the above section to avoid duplication of content. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]