Chemistry Understanding Glycosides: Structure and Function Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hootenanny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molecule
AI Thread Summary
A glycoside is defined as a molecule formed when two or more sugar molecules are linked through an oxygen or sulfur atom at the anomeric carbon. This structure implies that glycosides are non-reducing sugars, as the anomeric carbon is involved in the bond and cannot participate in reduction reactions. The initial question about the correctness of this definition was resolved by the user. The discussion highlights the relationship between glycoside structure and its reducing properties. Overall, the key takeaway is the understanding of glycosides as non-reducing sugars due to their bonding structure.
Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
9,621
Reaction score
9
A glycoside is a molecule where two (or more) molecules of sugar are bonded through either the keytone or aldhyde group and the anomeric carbon via an oxygen or sulphur atom. - Is this correct?

If so, does that mean that glycosides are non-reducing sugars because they are bonded through the anomeric carbon, which means the anomeric carbon cannot reduce other molecules?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[edit] Doesn't matter I've figured it out
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Determining the positive and negative poles of a molecule
Replies
6
Views
5K
Non polar molecule with polar bonds?
Replies
34
Views
4K
Chemistry How do we know ##BF_3## has Lewis structure but ##Al_2S_3## does not?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry Why Is Methylation of Glucose Considered Nucleophilic Substitution?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Physical Properties Dimethyl ether vs ethanol
Replies
1
Views
22K
Chemistry Chemistry: Elements, Molecules and Bonds
Replies
1
Views
7K
Chemistry Bigger the molecule the more polarizable
Replies
7
Views
14K
Chemistry Understanding Simple Molecular Structures in Chemistry
Replies
3
Views
2K
Chemistry Finding the molecular formula of an unknown hydrocarbon
Replies
4
Views
3K
IUPAC nomenclature for many multiple bonds
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top