1
$\begingroup$

I know 1->6 bond exists too, in amylose for example, but that one seems logical, since the 6th carbon is easier to access.

I understand why the bonds originate from the hemi-acetal carbon, but I don't understand why they are 1->4.

Why not 1->3 or 1->2 ? Since there are hydroxyles on every carbons in the ring?

While I was writing this, I just had an illumination, maybe someone can confirm:

Could it be that, the formation of glucose chains in plants and animals always make use of enzymes and that it is these enzymes which, by the shape of their active site, dictates what the bonds will be?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Why are glycosidic bonds always 1->4 in polysaccharides?

The premise of the question is false.

Why not 1->3 or 1->2 ?

1,3-linked glycosidic bonds certainly exist. In fact there's a whole class of molecules called beta glucans of which the 1,3-linked variety forms a major part.

Could it be that, the formation of glucose chains in plants and animals always make use of enzymes and that it is these enzymes which, by the shape of their active site, dictates what the bonds will be?

I think what you say here is true, but you should keep in mind that there are many different enzymes, and some will specifically form one linkage, and others will form alternate linkages.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.