Talk:Ribose

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miranda19983$!, Mhawada, Saltymedic. Peer reviewers: Ppoojawiki, Pragpats, Cindycchu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deoxyribose vs. Ribose

At some future time, the article on Deoxyribose should probably be used as the basis for an expanded article on Ribose. But it seemed to me that the best approach for now would be to let the Deoxyribose article get done 'right' first. -- djk July 2002

Where is the aldehyde group?

OK, I didn't get very good grades when I took organic chemistry, but doesn't an aldehyde require a carbon double-bonded to an oxygen somewhere? I don't see any double-bonds in this structure. --Arkuat 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Structure does contain double bonds when in its straight chain form, but it usually exists as a ring, when it 'reacts with itself' and the double bond is removed. See the straight chain structure here: [1] --PhiJ 19:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• This comment seems moot by now. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture is wrong

If the chemical formula for ribose is C5-H10-O5, then the picture must show 10 hydrogen atoms.

Both pictures are correct. In the standard way of drawing organic chemicals, sometimes called skeletal formulas (the second image), hydrogens attached to carbon atoms are implicit. In a Haworth projection (the first image), some hydrogens are implicit and others are not. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong. Looks like D-Xylose to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.27.76 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the haworth projection is a little deceiving but it is D-ribose, however the picture as shown is a C-3 epimer of D-xylose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.46.232 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyclic image of Ribose links to wrong image

The first image is of Ribose in its cyclic furanose form, however, the image links to ribose in straight chain form rather than the enlarged version of the current image. -- Ingenium, 11 December 2006

• This comment seems moot by now. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Terruble

This article is terrible. There isn't a bloody clear image of Ribose in ring form. Thats good start! Tourskin 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• We now have a pic of the furanose form, but there seems to be no pic of the pyranose form. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Treatment for fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue?

Is there any truth to 15 grams per day of D-Ribose helping to ease the pain of fibromyalgia, ease the exhaustion of chronic fatigue syndrome, or just generally increase a person's energy? Or is it all the usual quack food-supplement hype? GFR42 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) GFR42 "just plain tired"

It seems to have been all based on one trial by one doctor (Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, MD). I haven't come across any other trials than that one, which was labelled as a pilot study - not even a follow-up study. From having tried it myself for CFS, I believe there may have been some small benefit after taking it for over a month, but certainly not huge. I'm actually just about to withdraw from it and see if there are any noticeable negative effects. --Rob (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All it takes is one doctor to try. I have been drinking Rush Energy Drinks lately. Usually the normal energy drinks do not do anything for me. I have severe Fibromyalgia. I also have perpetual fatigue caused by the pain meds and muscle relaxers. This definitely helps me. I did not know why until i looked up all the ingredients, and find out which ONE ingredient was making the difference, different from all the other "energy" drinks i have tried. This little herb is a miracle. I am still somewhat skeptical to ingest anything new, in pill form especially, however...I would like to know more from anyone trying herb. PLEASE! Feedback and a regular posting habit will make it easier for someone to make their own decision. Akasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.227.84 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The paper cited for improvement while using d-ribose is very poorly designed. There is no control group, and the results are entirely subjective. The patients administered their own dose, and simply filled out a form at the end rating their well-being. Furthermore, the supposedly significant results were not so. The reported improvements in well-being (again, by filling out of questionnaires) were smaller than the standard deviations in the reported data. In other words, the error bars were larger than the observed change. And here's the clincher, the lead author on the paper (Teitelbaum) runs a website for nutritional supplements. Seems pretty fishy to me. --afireinside13t (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I found elsewhere that Teitelbaum is supposedly publishing a paper this year that includes proper placebo procedures. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out.--afireinside13t (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Ribofuranose-2D-skeletal.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Ribofuranose-2D-skeletal.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Ribofuranose.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Health facts wrong?

Some of the articles facts are wrong the person totally contradicted himself. Ribose is used to speedily recover from fatigue and when taked during excersised helps hugely with endurance. This product also strengthen the heart muscle which in fact makes a healthier human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulmash (talk • contribs) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article makes an unsupported claim that there is no transporter or uptake mechanism for ribose in the intestine. I am not exactly what the purpose of this claim is, but from the context it sounds like a suggestion that ribose administered orally is not bioavailable. I don't know if this claim is true or not, but there is a Google Answers thread on this topic which cites a number of medical articles, at least one of which reports elevated serum ribose levels in response to oral ribose supplementation, which suggests to me that orally administered ribose is bioavailable. --Mark 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.3.112 (talk)

Alpha and beta?

I notice that there are two pictures in the commons labeled "ribofuranose": File:Alpha-D-Ribofuranose.svg and File:Beta-D-Ribofuranose.svg. Does that mean that there are four (rather than two) ring forms of D-ribose? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• More genreally, there should be an explanation of what C3'-endo and C2'-endo mean. The current text gives the impression that they are synonyms of furan/pyran structure, but that is not the case, right? Perhaps the explanation should go in the ribofuranose and ribopyranose articles. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure

The text says:

Like many monosaccharides, ribose occurs in water as the linear form H-(C=O)-(CHOH)4-H and any of two ring forms: ribofuranose ("C3'-endo"), with a five-membered ring, and ribopyranose ("C2'-endo"), with a six-membered ring. The ribofuranose form is predominant.

This is unsourced, and it contradicts the table in Konformation (in german). Albmont (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Section removal

I have removed section titled "Marketed as a dietary supplement" because it is unreferenced and so vague as to be unhelpful. If anyone wants to find references to support the use of ribose as a dietary supplement for bodybuilders or other uses, and write a coherent paragraph about it, that would be fine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Medical uses of ribose

Should discuss medical uses: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-827-RIBOSE.aspx?activeIngredientId=827&activeIngredientName=RIBOSE

Ribose is the treatment of choice for myoadenylate deaminase deficiency: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adenosine_Monophosphate_Deaminase_Deficiency_type_1 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3102830

drh (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Numbering convention

In the conventional numbering scheme for monosaccharides, the carbon atoms are numbered from C1' (in the aldehyde group) to C5'.

That is incorrect. They are C1 to C5. They are referred to with primes (C1' to C5') in nucleotides and such because 1-5 refer to atoms in the base. AlphaHelical (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Half-life in the body

Some reference to the half-life in the body would be very nice. I thought I'd find that here. Palyne (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

i'm not a dietician, but given that it's a monosaccharide there is no need to metabolize it in any way. ergo, there is no 1/2 life (dieticians please feel free to correct or corroborate). it's sugar

Artificial Comet Demystifies The Source of Life on Earth

Ref : http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2739.htm, http://www2.cnrs.fr/sites/en/fichier/pr_ribose_cometary_ice_web.pdf

Some french scholars had mimicked an artificial comet in their laboratory and proved that the source of life on earth must'd been evolved from the ice cubes deposited by an unknown comet. 'Coz their lab tests yielded the Ribose / D-Ribose (C5H10O5). Which is the backbone of DNA and RNA... (Still, the science is nothing but a better medium to understand the NATURE....smirk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.226.91 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

October 2019 changes

We added the entire "Function in Biochemistry" section as well as the majority of the info in the "structure" section and the last paragraph to "medical uses." The majority of the modifications section was also added. All of the figures except the first 4 ring structures were added.

I really like the new additions made in the article to make it more comprehensive and clear. Some additions that could be helpful are to include more links to other wiki content, such as many of the terms in the structure section that may be unfamiliar to non-biochemistry audiences. Words like nucleosides and nucleotides, secondary structure, ring strain, steric effects, pentose phosphate pathway (all instances), and more can be linked to improve the article. A possible new image that includes the difference between D and L ribose may be helpful. Additionally, the spacing for the superscripted in-text citation numbers was not always consistent. Sometimes it is before the period, sometimes after, sometimes without a space, and sometimes with. I think keeping this format consistent can help make the text more visually appealing. On the same note, more color in the pictures could also help, for example perhaps using a color code for energy usage vs enzymes vs molecules in the PPP diagram.

Ppoojawiki (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)ppoojawiki

Overall this is really well done! One specific suggestion that I’d make is to add pictures/diagrams to help break up the text and demonstrate concepts in a more visual way. For instance, when introducing ribose, it might be helpful to show the Fishcher projection instead of describing it in words. Additionally, the structure section is really thorough which is great! I would also encourage you to include links to other wiki articles, particularly in this section since the more links you can add to your article, the better chance it has to maintain the edits the edits that you’ve made. 35.2.158.98 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)pragpats

Peer Review MLibrarian

I like how you extended the structure, functions and uses sections. It would be better to write an article in the Sandbox next time. Some minor corrections:

1. "Ribose is used a building block" please correct to "Ribose is used as a building block"
2. It is difficult to see the charges on the figure "RNA hydrolysis mechanism", would be best to re-draw them
3. In chapter "Modifications": "produce similar similar sugars that only vary at the 4' position." - please delete one "similar" MLibrarian (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Commercial Manufacture

I came here looking for a quick paragraph on how D-Ribose is manufactured. That seems to be a a typical encyclopedic subtopic. The article goes into excruciating detail on the chemistry, much of which seems out of the scope of a Wiki entry, but has no info on how it is made. I will see if I can find the info I needed and add a paragraph to the entry. Liberato (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Stereochemistry is definitely wrong also unclear

The "IUPAC name" says "(2R,3R,4S,5R)" which cannot be right, there are only 3 stereogenic centers in the linear form and although there are four in the alpha-furanose and beta-furanose forms (rings) they are NOT in keeping with the structure shown, carbon 1 is chiral, and carbon 5 is not. The IUPAC name implicitly uses furan ring numbering with 1 as the heteroatom (oxygen) but it seems wrong no matter what, and it doesn't say whether it is using the alpha- or beta-anomer and I am dubious IUPAC would number the carbons differently than biochemists, especially because calling it some pentane derivative should work find in IUPAC nomenclature and would preserve the identities of the 5' and 3' carbons. They are 5 and 3 in this article, but 5' and 3' with a nucleobase attached because those get non-primed numbers. I am sorry I'm not logged in. I can check several textbooks in my house to find the absolute stereochemistry, applying preference rules to the ring forms for R- or S-configuration is a tiny bit tricky. 209.94.144.13 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

D-ribose vs. L-ribose

The same diagram used for d-ribose in the summary is then used for l-ribose when comparing d-ribose to l-ribose. I presume this is a mistake or some annotations are needed to describe the differences in projections. 2604:CA00:10B:4543:0:0:1060:3F17 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)