Stereocentre/stereogenic carbon

  • Thread starter Thread starter abhineetK
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carbon
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of stereocentres and stereogenic carbons in a specific molecular structure, focusing on the implications of these terms and the configurations of certain carbon atoms within the molecule. Participants explore the definitions and characteristics of stereogenic centers, particularly in relation to chirality and stereoisomerism.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether carbon 3 (C3) in the molecule C1OOH-C2H(OH)-C3H(OH)-C4H(OH)-C5OOH is a stereocentre.
  • Another participant asserts that C3 cannot be a stereocentre because it is attached to two identical groups, which does not satisfy the requirement for a stereogenic carbon.
  • Some participants argue that C3 can exist in different configurations, suggesting that it may have R or S forms under certain conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the ability to convert between two drawn compounds through bond rotation, with differing opinions on whether they are different stereoisomers or conformers.
  • One participant mentions that the two compounds are meso-forms, indicating that they are not chiral but still different stereoisomers.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of mirror planes in determining chirality and stereogenicity, stating that C3 cannot be labeled as R or S when C2 and C4 are identical.
  • There is a request for clarification using Fischer projections to illustrate the concepts being discussed.
  • A later reply acknowledges the complexity of the discussion and expresses gratitude for the contributions made.
  • One participant admits to potentially complicating the discussion with their initial post.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether C3 can be considered a stereogenic carbon and whether the discussed compounds can be interconverted through simple bond rotations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the nature of chirality and stereoisomerism in the context of the given molecular structure.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the definitions of stereocentres and stereogenic carbons, as well as the conditions under which certain configurations can be achieved. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific molecular representations, such as Fischer projections, which have not been fully explored in the conversation.

abhineetK
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
In
C1OOH-C2H(OH)-C3H(OH)-C4H(OH)-C5OOH,
is C3 stereocentre?

>>Will it make any difference if I use the term 'stereogenic carbon' in place of 'stereocentre'??

Please, explain.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
A stereogenic carbon is one that is attached to four different molecules. In the molecule you have shown, carbon 3 is attached to a hydrogen, hydroxyl, and two HOOCCHOH-s, and since the latter appear twice, it can not be a stereocentre. Keep looking :)
 
Yet it can exist in two different configurations. If C2 and C4 were both (R), for instance, C3 can exist in (R) or (S) forms...
 
sjb-2812 said:
Yet it can exist in two different configurations. If C2 and C4 were both (R), for instance, C3 can exist in (R) or (S) forms...

How? C3 is not chiral... please explain what you want to say...
 
What I mean is, the two compounds drawn below are different (I think) can you convert one to the other only by bond rotation?

Derived formally from the ketone, one is reduced from the top, and the other from the bottom..?
 

Attachments

  • diacid.png
    diacid.png
    2.2 KB · Views: 490
Rotate them around C3-H bond (the one lying on the paper surface).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sjb-2812 said:
What I mean is, the two compounds drawn below are different (I think) can you convert one to the other only by bond rotation?

Derived formally from the ketone, one is reduced from the top, and the other from the bottom..?

Both the products you have shown are same, i.e., they have same configuration, though they might have different conformations...
 
SJB is right. These are two different meso-forms. Both aren't chiral but they are different stereoisomers. That is RRS=SRR and RSS=SSR. The funny thing is, that upon inversion, C(3) does not change from R to S, as C1 and C3 are mapped onto each other.
 
DrDu said:
SJB is right. These are two different meso-forms. Both aren't chiral but they are different stereoisomers. That is RRS=SRR and RSS=SSR. The funny thing is, that upon inversion, C(3) does not change from R to S, as C1 and C3 are mapped onto each other.

please explain with the help of fischer projections...
 
  • #10
In the picture of sjb, the plane trough C(3), OH(3), H(3) is a mirror plane for both molecules. Hence they cannot be chiral. Nevertheless the groups C(2) and C(4) are mirror images of each other => meso-form.

Yet I don't see how one should be transformable into the other molecule simply by bond or molecule rotations (which is what you would imply, saying that they are different conformers but not configurations). So they are different stereoisomers. Hence C(3) is stereogenic whence it can be labeled as R or S.

In the cases where both C(2) and C(4) are either both R or both S, the resulting molecules are chiral and enantiomeric to each other. However, as the two groups C(2) and C(4) are identical, C(3) is not stereogenic in this case and cannot be labeled as R or S. (In the picture of sjb, these molecules result if the OH at either C(2) or C(4) were pointing down instead of up.
I fear that you have to figure out the Fischer projections yourself. I do not see why they would be helpfull.
 
  • #11
Yes, you are right...
Thank you very much for your reply...
 
  • #12
Sorry, I may have muddied the waters with my first post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K