15
$\begingroup$

Oxford dictionary online gives etymology of alanine as:

Coined in German as Alanin, from aldehyde + -an (for ease of pronunciation) + -ine.

But I see no resemblance to the aldehyde structure in alanine. Is this etymology incorrect, or am I mistaken about the resemblance?

Alanine

$\endgroup$
20
$\begingroup$

In the original German paper [1] Adolf Strecker used Aldehyd-Ammoniak or aldehyde-ammonia as a precursor, that's where the name derives from:

Vor einigen Jahren habe ich gezeigt, daſs Aldehyd-Ammoniak und Blausäure beim Erwärmen mit verdünnter Chlorwasserstoffsäure sich zu einer schwachen Basis, Alanin genannt, vereinigen [...]: $$\ce{\underset{\text{Aldehyd-Ammoniak}}{C4H4O2 * NH3} + HCl + \underset{Blausäure}{C2NH} +2 HO = \underset{Alanin}{C6H7NO4} + NH4Cl}$$

As David Richerby mentioned in the comments, Strecker's brutto-formula ($\ce{C6H7NO4}$) deviates from the moden one ($\ce{C3H7NO2}$), also the reaction scheme is a bit different.

  1. Strecker, A. Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 1854, 91 (3), 349–351. DOI 10.1002/jlac.18540910309.
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @andselisk Easy-to-understand answers to easy-to-understand questions always get lots of votes. Think of it as compensation for the times when you've spent an hour writing a detailed answer to a difficult question and it scores +2 because nobody can be bothered to read it. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Aug 27 '17 at 10:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Having said that, I'm a bit confused. Isn't alanine $\ce{C3H7NO2}$? $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Aug 27 '17 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRicherby I'm not 100% sure, but most likely it's brutto-formula was established incorrectly at that time. Many other sources around that period of time (mid 19th century) refer to alanine as to $\ce{C6H7NO4}$, or, to meet the era's spirit, $\ce{C^6H^7NO^4}$. $\endgroup$ – andselisk Aug 27 '17 at 16:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. Might be worth adding a note about that to the answer. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Aug 27 '17 at 18:30
5
$\begingroup$

User364914 may be confused by the "odd" formulas in Strecker's 1854 paper. At that time there was no universal agreement on the masses of atoms. Was carbon 6 or 12? Was oxygen 8 or 16? Strecker used 6 for carbon and 8 for oxygen.

The aldehyde is acetaldehyde, $\ce{NH3}$ is OK, blausaure is hydrogen cyanide and $\ce{OH}$ is water. The corrected structures should have half the number of carbons and oxygens. The modern equation should read:

$$\ce{C2H4O.NH3 + HCl + HCN + H2O -> C3H7NO2 + NH4Cl}$$

You may want to read about the Karlsruhe Congress of 1860.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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