"Chiral centres sequence" vs "isostructurality"

The area is an open house for a reason, all is open for chatting and such like and stuff. Treat this area like a conference evening social. You can talk science ask silly questions and be rude and drunk to other scientist who are also rude and drunk. Rude not in a mean way just in like that happy tipsy way. Basically an area to be casual and mellow in! If this area had a theme song it would start with - Making your way in the world today.....
Forum rules
This area is for general chit-chat for "off-topic" postings and for threads that just don't fit into the any other area of the forum. The general forum rules still apply so please observe them.

Please post THEORY, SOFTWARE and HARDWARE related posts in their appropriate areas e.g. shelxl related posts go to the shelx area located in the SOFTWARE area. If you have a CheckCIF issue post that in the CheckCIF area which is located in the SOFTWARE forum > Platon > CheckCIF.
Sealed Tube
Posts: 18
Joined: 13 Jul 2011, 18:56
Location: Buenos Aires

"Chiral centres sequence" vs "isostructurality"

Post by oiggab_odracir » 22 Aug 2017, 15:04

Dear Colleagues:
I am far away from Organic Chemistry, and came across a puzzling problem which ended up being trivial when correctly analyzed, with the adequate information.
The point is that I solved two natural products with exactly the same "ring bone" presenting 7 chiral centers. The macro-rings were absolutely superimposable and accordingly, isostructural, but the chiral sequences were (1): 1S,4S,5S,6R,7R,9S,10S, but (2):1S,4S,5S,6R,7R,9R,10S, as correctly assigned by PLATON, following the usual rules on the subject. The puzzling situation for me was that in spite of the groups being absolutely isostructural, they presented different chirality at C9. How could that be?
The answerer (probably obvious for an organic chemist) was that there was an H replaced by an OH in a neighbouring site (C8), with what the "weights" used in evaluating the chirality at C9 in each structure were different, and thus the resulting chiralities inverted. In my ignorance of the chirality assignment rules, it took me quite a while to find out the reason.
The conclusion for me was that the chiral sequence could not be taken as a trustable argument to analyze isostructurality. And the final point is if I got trapped in a trivial problem, currently discussed in undergraduate lectures in Organic Chemistry, or it is not that frequent and is worth mentioning when writing a paper…?
Suggestions are welcome
Ricardo (an ashamed illiterate in Organic Chemistry…and quite a few more disciplines)

User avatar
Olex2 Boffin
Posts: 680
Joined: 24 Nov 2008, 21:34

Re: "Chiral centres sequence" vs "isostructurality"

Post by oleg » 22 Aug 2017, 17:01


when I was developing RSA (R/S analysis) procedure in Olex2 I discovered that Platon produces different results for two atoms in sucrose - the rules for the rings are confusing but Olex2 gives the 'heavier' part of the ring more weight.

Give it a try for comparison - just open the structure and type 'rsa' in the command line (you may need to type 'text' or scroll the output with PgUp/PgDown).


Return to “Open House”