I would like to begin by introducing you, dear reader, to a
good friend of mine. Meet Glucose.
She is a humble molecule by herself, yet she actually is
aptly designed for what she has to do. Glucose is, simply, the end metabolic
fate of almost every dietary carbohydrate that is burned for energy by higher
animals, with the one major exception that I know of being hummingbirds (but
that is another post). We may rely upon glucose for the main dietary energy, or
we may rely upon fats. Students of organic chemistry will quickly note, if they
build the model, that the heterocyclic form and orientation of the hydroxyl
groups represents the absolute energetic minimum that can be achieved using the
chemical formula C6H12O6. The creation did not
waste its effort in building an inefficient system.
Because most creatures make extensive use of dietary
glucose, in various forms, for their caloric intake, the question arises as to
what form the dietary glucose should take. The fact that we see no repositories
of liquid-syrup storage organs in nature should immediately provoke the thought
that perhaps this mode of energy storage is impractical. There are, of course,
succulent, sweet fruits of all kinds, but because the purpose of these
structures is to provide a means to disseminate the seeds of the plant through
ambulatory creatures, this is the exception that proves the rule. Thus, we
should instead look to a more efficient energy store than an aqueous syrup-pot.
One option would be to store crystallized sugars, but this contradicts the
highly structured, watery paradigm of life that we see throughout the creation,
and at any rate is energetically costly even as a thought experiment.
Thus, only one other feasible option remains: to condense
glucose into a polymer unit. The cyclic form of glucose itself is the result of
a condensation reaction, and the C1 adjacent to the ring oxygen remains the
most electron-deficient atom of the molecule.
By contrast, the most electron-rich labile carbon atom of
the ring is C4, and we should therefore look to this as the center for the
condensation of two glucose molecules.
Because the ring must open for the condensation reaction between C1 and
C4 of two glucose units, the directionality of the bond at C1 of the first, is
not fixed, and the carbon is called anomeric.
If facing downward, the bond of the C1 – C4 oxygen is called an α-linkage; if
facing upward, the bond is instead termed a β-linkage. As the chain length
elongates, the resulting sugars produced from homogeneous mixtures of such
linkages do not significantly differ in properties. As the chain lengths
increase, however, significant differences begin to appear.
The different linkages, α-(1à4) and β-(1à4),
although a subtle difference at first blush, result in very different end
results that can be mainly put down to the minimum energy conformations assumed
by the different chains of individual glucose units (or, to be slightly more
precise, anhydroglucose units, but that is a distinction unimportant to us at
this point). The α-(1à4) linked chain, when carried out to very long
degrees of polymerization (DP) results in a helical polymer termed the amylose component of starch, although in
real systems amylose never appears as a purely linear chain. If we carry out
the same polymerization on a purely β-(1à4)
linked chain of glucose units, we instead get the ribbon-like cellulose.
The natural process of starch biosynthesis also introduces
α-(1à6)
linkages to the chain backbone. Naturally-occurring amylose contains a small
amount of these linkages, which we will here call branch points. However, amylose is just one component of the
compact energy storage of plants known as starch, and it is usually the minor
component. Instead, the majority (70 – 80%) of material in most starches
consists of amylopectin, which is a
monster of a molecule worthy of much study. Perhaps the best and most vivid
conceptual illustration for the nature of amylose was proposed by Susumu
Hizukuri, who created a chandelier or bush-like structure of forged chain-links
suspended from a single originating chain (see below).
Because amylopectin molecules are so large – indeed, they
are the largest polymers, in terms of molecular weight, found in nature – they
actually contain multiple crystalline and amorphous domains and are responsible
for the overall crystallinity of starch granules. The branch-chains of
amylopectin accomplish this by forming coiled double-helices of glucose
polymers. Even at this level, this is not an easy system to describe, for the length of these chains can thereby
dictate the crystalline nature and properties of starch. The two main
categories of starch crystalline structure are the A-type and the B-type, which
are distinguished based on the unit cell of starch-chain double-helices. A third
type, the C-type, is more properly a mixture of the A-type and B-type
structures within the same starch granule. A fourth also exists but is of a
special character and so shall not be treated here.
Confused yet? Good. We will not muddy the waters here
further with an exact discussion of the limits of amylopectin chain-lengths
that give rise to these characteristics. A decent rule of thumb at this point
is that the A-type structure results from closer packing of the double-helices
of shorter amylopectin branch-chains, whereas the B-type results from the
looser packing of longer amylopectin branch-chains. Helpfully, cereal starches
generally fall into the A-type classification, whereas tuber starches (with the
notable exception of tapioca) generally fall into the B-type. Pulses and
bananas of many varieties are exemplary of the C-type.
All of this is merely a foundation. In talking about starch,
where very fine differences in chemical structure and characteristics can have
a profound influence on the properties of the resulting material, these
foundational aspects are very often neglected by professionals dealing only
with higher-level applications of these materials, such as in feeding studies.
It is my intention to clarify these matters for the layman and to describe, in
as much detail as I can, why often the conventional wisdom on these matters is
merely falsehood.
Note: I did not have access to my usual chemical drawing program
when making this post, and as such I must confess that the images contained in
this document were shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia and doctored accordingly.
For the tireless editors of that ultimate repository of man’s useless
knowledge, I express my deepest gratitude.
The ceramic vs titanium - Vitium Arts
ReplyDeleteI used to be a big fan of stainless steel steel at home, micro touch trimmer but used ford fusion titanium I can titanium rings be resized still enjoy trekz titanium pairing it in the casino and the titanium rod in femur complications bingo floors. Rating: 3.7 · 2 votes