Talk:Stacking (chemistry): Difference between revisions
start of redraft |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Started rewrite by adding initial section. Haven't got to rewriting rest of article yet, just put in an attention of experts box. [[Special:Contributions/81.187.202.205|81.187.202.205]] ([[User talk:81.187.202.205|talk]]) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
Started rewrite by adding initial section. Haven't got to rewriting rest of article yet, just put in an attention of experts box. [[Special:Contributions/81.187.202.205|81.187.202.205]] ([[User talk:81.187.202.205|talk]]) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:This pi-pi disinformation has been repeated in umpteen biochemistry textbooks over the yearsbut constant repetition does not make it true. The electrostatic basis of stacking is discussed at length in the text "Principles of Nucleic Acids" by Wolfram Saenger, Springer 1984 ISBN0387907629;ISBN0387907610 (pbk.) I no longer have my copy so I can't quote pages.[[Special:Contributions/96.54.53.165|96.54.53.165]] ([[User talk:96.54.53.165|talk]]) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:51, 22 December 2009
![]() | Chemistry C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
merge notice: this article definition indentical to that of Stacking (chemistry) V8rik 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is badly written, filled with factual and grammatical errors, I will hopefully return in a few days to tidy it up
Stacking and pi-pi
I don't have free full-text access to this article at home : Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2008;47(18):3430-4. , but it seems to suggest that the pi-pi interaction description here is inaccurate. The arguments make sense to me (that Coulombic attraction between CH and pi are more responsible). Word is that the author quotes wikipedia as a source of the disinformation. It would be nice if people who saw litter were more inclined to pick it up than complain about it, but that's probably asking too much, especially if the author can use it to make their paper more noteworthy. I'll see if I have the free-text to this via work, and if so consider fixing it after reading it. As I've got the memory of a goldfish, I will probably forget, hence this note. 81.187.202.205 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a look at the citation above, it looks good and the consequence is essentially that this whole article is screwed. I'll sort it out during my vacation, at least to the extent that it's not explicitly rubbish. According to the article, well supported by modelling in my judgement, much of stacking effect comes from Van De Waals interactions as is evidenced, for example, by similar energies from stacking cyclohexane and benzene. pi-pi interactions it seems can contribute to stacking, but only in certain (non-typical) circumstances. For example, it's umlikely to be a major contributor to the stacking effect in nucleobase (biological) circumstances. This is not yet reflected in most of the secondary literature. Obviously, there shouldn't be excessive weight to this one piece, but we need to explicitly unconfuse stacking from pi-pi and mention the two approaches ("orthodoxy" vs "recent research suggests"). This would have been a whole lot easier with Open Access, grumble grumble, Wiley, grumble grumble. 131.111.21.21 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Started rewrite by adding initial section. Haven't got to rewriting rest of article yet, just put in an attention of experts box. 81.187.202.205 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- This pi-pi disinformation has been repeated in umpteen biochemistry textbooks over the yearsbut constant repetition does not make it true. The electrostatic basis of stacking is discussed at length in the text "Principles of Nucleic Acids" by Wolfram Saenger, Springer 1984 ISBN0387907629;ISBN0387907610 (pbk.) I no longer have my copy so I can't quote pages.96.54.53.165 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)