Talk:Peptide bond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
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. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Nomenclature change?
Suggestion: Change the title and all references to peptide bond to peptide linkage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 October 2006 9UTC)
- Umm, why do you think that "peptide linkage" is more common than "peptide bond"? The latter seems to be the international standard, no? Willow 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with keeping the current title. Keep the name 'peptide bond'. This is what students will look for when trying to find additional information. 74.192.206.176 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] more general informaton
This article seems to take a lot of things for granted, like the readers undertsanding of the material. Also there is no mention of who discovered peptide bonds, or named them.What does peptide mean? this might be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.149.155.83 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Figure 1: Error?
In figure 1 there seems to be an inconsistency. As far as I remember from high school chemistry, in a reaction there should be the same number of elements on both sides. On the left of the equation there is no carbon element but on the right there suddenly is. I suspect that the oxygen element with the double bond should have been a carbon element. can someone more knowledgable take a look at this matter and take appropriate actions please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubi KZ (talk • contribs) 18:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Figure 1 is perfectly ok. Chemists tend to use short-cut formulae like that on the right, where each corner where lines meet that is not labeled with an atom symbol means a carbon atom.
What troubles me much more is Figure 3!!!! There is no such thing as a nitrogen carrying FIVE bonds. Four bonds is the absolute maximum, even in biochemistry. Also, the electron lone pair of the nitrogen atom is involved heavily in the amide resonance. Consequently, it is not easy to either be protonated or accept a hydrogen bond. The hydrogen bond acceptor in an amide bond is the carbonyl oxygen atom. In the chemical literature, there exist a few reports that the nitrogen gets protonated, but this seems to be very rare. If one protonates the carbonyl oxygen instead, one creates a resonance-stabilized cation. Consequently, the oxygen is the basic site!!
Figure 3 is therefore completely wrong and should definitively be removed or replaced by some other figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.22.226 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The hydrogen bond was shown with horizontal dashes, which was a bit confusing since those are often used in stereochemical drawings. I replaced this with a dotted line. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
....as nylons and aramids, are synthetic molecules (polymers) with peptide bonds.... That is utterly errant. The peptide bond is a concept used in context of amino acids, extended with ramachandran plots etc, etc. Seems to have been penned by a molbioist. Irregardlesss, the article ought to be improved.Slicky (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC) "By contrast, donating a hydrogen bond to an amide nitrogen in an X-Pro peptide bond should favor the single-bonded form; donating it to the double-bonded form would give the nitrogen five quasi-covalent bonds! (See Figure 3.)" BSSlicky (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
