Slashdot Mirror


Better Living Through Chiral Chemistry

Atario writes "A long time ago, I remember reading in some science magazine that someone had the bright idea of using enantiomers (the two forms of asymmetrical molecules, like left- and right-handed versions of the same one) to make zero-calorie sugar -- turns out, in general, that sugars are all asymmetrical, and everything generates and uses only one of the two chiralities (handednesses) for each one. If we consume a mirrored version of, say, sucrose, we might get all of the sweet but none of the calories. Sweet-tooths rejoice! But nothing ever came of it. Now, however, Wired has an interesting article that explains what the holdup has been and indicates the logjam may break soon, but, as it turns out, in a non-synthetic, albeit nonzero-calorie, way."

7 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Whoa by xenocide2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    For Levin, it was a third tour at Hopkins; he received a bachelor's in 1947 and a master's in sanitary engineering a year later.

    And I always thought that a janitor was an entry level position.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  2. non-nutritive "food" by dpilot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two years of Newtrition investment and research had produced CHOW(TM). CHOW(TM) contained spun, plaited, and woven protein molecules, capped and coded, carefully designed to be ignored by even the most ravenous digestive tract enzymes; no-cal sweeteners; mineral oils replacing vegetable oils; fibrous materials, colorings, and flavorings. The end result was a foodstuff almost indistinguishable from any other except for two things. Firstly, the price, which was slightly hgher, and secondly the nutritional content, which was roughly equivalent to that of a Sony Walkman. It didn't matter how much you ate, you lost weight.*

    * And hair. And skin tone. And, if you ate enought of it long enough, vital signs.

    From Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. (pg 110 in my copy)

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  3. Stereochemistry - handedness overly simplistic by Zeio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some compounds are listed as d- and l- refer to the highest-numbered asymmetric stereogenic centers. They also do not indicate the sign of rotation of plane-polarized light.

    Most interesting organic compounds have multiple stereogenic centers. One of the main reasons plants are used to obtain starting materials for various modern drugs, ergot infested rye (indole substrate), poppies, indica sativa all provide starting points that make it so that creating synthetic materials based on these plant extracts as starting reagents is far easier due to the fact plant enzymes can place each stereogenic center in the right conformation and in wet chemistry this is exceedingly difficult. Mentioning some of the starting plants for illicit drugs is no mistake; they are notoriously sensitive to chiral conformation, and provide some of the most interesting sterochemical research subject matter. Also, due to the draconian laws surrounding federally controlled substances and their precursors, it isn't easy to study these things, despite being hugely important.

    To say that stereochemistry is limited to 2-handedness is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality. If I'm not mistaken, C6-H12-O6 "glucose"; has D-glucose has 4 chiral carbon atoms (2^4 = 16 possible stereoisomers) - I believe only one of which is able to provide calories.

    Various notations for stereochemistry exist, and one must factor out canonical conformations and take into account the bending of the various stereogenic centers in 3d-space, leading to notations that include "boat" and "chair."

    Now, as to the practicality of stereogenics and its use in zero calorie metabolism: this is probably less difficult than separating U238 and U235, but one could probably get an enzyme of modify bacteria to plunk out zero-cal conformations, but in large scale synthetic operations, getting picky with chirality could be problematic / costly. Things are ridiculously hard to separate, and you need to use special techniques such as using tartrate salts and other expensive and slow ways of picking out the various conformations of chiral compounds.

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    1. Re:Stereochemistry - handedness overly simplistic by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      To say that stereochemistry is limited to 2-handedness is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality. If I'm not mistaken, C6-H12-O6 "glucose"; has D-glucose has 4 chiral carbon atoms (2^4 = 16 possible stereoisomers) - I believe only one of which is able to provide calories.

      It isn't as neat as that.

      In general N chiral carbons means 2^N possible configurations. Half of these are mirror images (enantiomers) of each other. That means there are 2^(N-1) distinct epimers. These are distinct chemicals in their own right. They don't just taste different and rotate light backwards. They have different melting points, solubilities, IR spectra, etc.

      So glucose, with its 4 chiral carbons, is a member of a family of eight related epimers. Any two of the 8 will differ from each other in that between 1 to 3 (1 to N-1) carbons have flipped chirality, making them diastereomers of each other- some carbons are flipped, some aren't. And each has a D and an L form.

      The 8 epimers of glucose (including glucose itself) have names: allose, altrose, glucose, mannose, gulose, idose, galactose, and talose. Collectively they are referred to as aldohexoses. As far as I know, most are digestible and taste more or less sweet. Gulose is nonfermentable. Galactose is less sweet than glucose but certainly has calories since it's a component of lactose. Finding information on what the rare ones taste like is difficult. They don't appear in many cookbooks and the people who work with them don't seem to be terribly interested in telling us what they taste like.

  4. Re: Sure there are no side effects by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    > Seems like every time they come out with a new 0-cal sweetener, that is safer then the last, it turns out to have some unforseen side effect that makes it worse then the last.

    Fortunately, this one merely makes the water in your toilet spiral down the wrong way when you flush it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. Celebrity deathmatch: Murphy vs Darwin by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

    In 1879, chemists Ira Remsen and Constantine Fahlberg synthesized a derivative of coal tar called orthobenzoyl sulfimide. One day, Fahlberg spilled the substance on his hand, which later that evening he touched to his mouth. It tasted sweet. He filed for a patent and called the substance saccharin. In 1937, a University of Illinois grad student discovered another sweetener when he set his cigarette on a lab bench during an experiment - testing a would-be antifever drug - and then took a drag off the cyclamate-coated end. In 1965, a chemist named Jim Schlatter was working on a compound to treat gastric ulcers. He licked his finger to grab a sheet of paper and tasted aspartame for the first time. Then there was the 1976 discovery of sucralose by a King's College student working with chemically altered sugars. The student - not a native English speaker - mistook his professor's instruction to "test" the material and tasted a mouthful.

    Thus conclusively proving that Murphy's law defeats Darwin's law.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. Re:The one time patents would be a Good Thing... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kraft have patents of their own

    Patent sprinkling Viagra on cheese as a drug delivery system.

    BEHOLD, THE POWER OF CHEESE!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.