Talk:Diastereomer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The following explanation given in the article is wrong: "In simple terms two stereoisomers are said to be diastereoisomers of each other if only one stereogenic centre differs between the two stereoisomers. It's a definition of an epimer.

References:

- Garrett, Grisham "Biochemistry" ("Pairs of isomers that have opposite configurations at one or more of the chiral centers but are not mirror images of each other are called diastereoisomers", 2nd ed., 1999, p. 213)

- McMurray "Organic Chemistry"

  • The distinction is exactly one for an epimer and one or more stereocenters for the Diastereomer, I have added your reference and definition V8rik 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] congrads

--212.49.92.124 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)ithink the article in diastereomer is a great one and actually easy to understand. grreat job --212.49.92.124 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Fischer Projections

Either the Fisher Projections are not following convention (vertical, into page; horizontal, out of page), is plain wrong, or conflicts with the article on Fisher Projections. Can someone fix the pictures.

  • I am unable to see anything wrong with the image, convert the first row Fisher images by a 90 degrees rotation around the carbon chain axis and you will see they are identical with the second row depictions. Lets have discussion first V8rik (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


You are absolutely right. It was my misunderstanding of Fisher projections which was the problem. The only reason I removed the image--I would of had a discussion first--was I didn't want any false information on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for the confusion. Keep up the good work. Jabin1979

  • Thanks for your reply, I am glad the issue is resolved V8rik (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)