after a whole week of class, even rewatching the classes that I recorded and after going for 1 hour group tutoring I could not understand naming glycosidic bonds 'til I watched this. Thank you.
Why can't my professors explain things this clearly? You got me through undergrad and not you're apparently going to get me through dental school as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
Came here to clear my mind about reducing and non-reducing sugars, was not disappointed. Really good at sharing knowledge easily. Worth the subscription!
In the previous video you say that reducing sugars are sugars that are capable of being reduced, but in this video you are saying reducing sugars are sugars that act as reducing agents or can be oxidized. I was wondering if you could explain the difference in the definitions.
AK LECTURES I'm watching one of your videos atm here as a matter of fact, although I have a small favor, If you could make one detailed video about cystic fibrosis I would appreciate it so much! all the best
Hey Andrey! You mentioned reducing sugars are those that can be oxidised with bromine in presence of water, but doesn't it mean that they are reducible to form alditols? Yes, they can be oxidised as well, but that's not what the term "reducing sugars" means. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In the case of sucrose, both of the anomeric carbon atoms are substituted, that is, neither has a free -OH group. The substituted anomeric carbons cannot be converted to the aldehyde configuration and thus cannot participate in the oxidation-reduction reactions characteristic of reducing sugars. Thus, sucrose is not a reducing sugar.
Thank you for the video. I have a dumb question: How many linkages is possible between two monosaccharides? For example, can we have an alpha 2-4 bond between galactose and glucose? Thank you.
Hello Sir,I want to know whether the molar ratio of sugar links ( glycosidic linkage) can be calculated through methylation analysis. If so, how to calculate it?
In your beta-1,4 glycosidic bond with D-galactose and D-glucose, your galactose is incorrect. The -OH groups should be down, up, up, and then the glycosidic bond. This is a minor detail that you should be getting right, instead of confusing others.
You re right he made one more mistake. In fructose he did not inverted the fructose molecule. If he had done it the oh groups at 3rd and 4th carbon would have been facing opposite direction. Which would have been the right structure of sucrose
Lol, it seems your domain is biochemistry. I am going to be moving into medicine, and I currently teach biology, but this is way too chemistry heavy for me. Your videos look good, but I am just out of my depth with your material. And nah, perhaps if I stick to them I can learn something right? Or just more brain damage.
You clearly know the material very very well, but if I might, I would recommend you work on your inflection. Your voice goes up and down way too much during a sentence, and your sentences turned in to run-ons far too often and convoluted the information you were conveying.
Excellent description of how non-reducing and reducing sugars work. I've had a vague idea of it, but this made it very clear. Thank you!
You just summarized an hour and a half lecture into 11 minutes for me. Thanks for this informative video!
after a whole week of class, even rewatching the classes that I recorded and after going for 1 hour group tutoring I could not understand naming glycosidic bonds 'til I watched this. Thank you.
Why can't my professors explain things this clearly? You got me through undergrad and not you're apparently going to get me through dental school as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
God bless your soul. You’ve made gibberish make sense. My professor could never explain like you.
Came here to clear my mind about reducing and non-reducing sugars, was not disappointed. Really good at sharing knowledge easily. Worth the subscription!
In the previous video you say that reducing sugars are sugars that are capable of being reduced, but in this video you are saying reducing sugars are sugars that act as reducing agents or can be oxidized. I was wondering if you could explain the difference in the definitions.
That is exactly what I needed. You are THE BEST TEACHER EVER.
you are the best teacher ever
this lecturer is the reason why future physicians will be 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Really welldone man! you are a savior!! congratz on getting 100k subs soon you truly deserve it!
Thank you!! :)
AK LECTURES I'm watching one of your videos atm here as a matter of fact, although I have a small favor, If you could make one detailed video about cystic fibrosis I would appreciate it so much! all the best
thanks for your nice lecture.
All your videos are really helpful.
Thanks
Made it so much clear.literally so much.
Sending lots of thanks❤
thank uh very much sir!
your videos have always been helpful.
seriously i love you so much clear explanation with perfect tone of voice
Thank you! Your explanation of reducing/nonreducing sugars was exquisite!
Great explanation! Thanks for your videos, really appreciate it.
You are wright
Ur videos are really helpful
Thanks sir
Please teach my professor how to teach like you! lol finally understood this concept, thank you very much, your videos are always super helpful!
thank you sir
Very nice explanation.👍🙏
I am watching these as supplement materials while studying year one in medical school. I wish I found these for my MCAT studying!
This lecture is very thorough and easy to follow; I subscribed. Thanks!
Great explanation...thank you
Hey Andrey!
You mentioned reducing sugars are those that can be oxidised with bromine in presence of water, but doesn't it mean that they are reducible to form alditols? Yes, they can be oxidised as well, but that's not what the term "reducing sugars" means. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
fantastic lecture! Now I got the difference between reducing sugar and non reducing sugar.
so clear and concise -- great lecture!
Thank you very much!! your vids always make the best senses to me
Almost 6 years old video still the best👍
best teacher thank you for your work Andrey you are the best.
In the case of sucrose, both of the anomeric carbon atoms are substituted, that is, neither has a free -OH group. The substituted anomeric carbons cannot be converted to the aldehyde configuration and thus cannot participate in the oxidation-reduction reactions characteristic of reducing sugars. Thus, sucrose is not a reducing sugar.
this was the explanation i was looking for!! thx
Simply brilliant
Thank you for the video. I have a dumb question: How many linkages is possible between two monosaccharides? For example, can we have an alpha 2-4 bond between galactose and glucose? Thank you.
Thank u very much for your excellent description !!!
Perfect. Thank you!
Osm explanation ever seen ❣️❣️
Hello Sir,I want to know whether the molar ratio of sugar links ( glycosidic linkage) can be calculated through methylation analysis. If so, how to calculate it?
Great lecture!
Sam W Thanks Sam!
Please clarify : Out of ALPHA BROMO - D - (+) - GLUCOSE & BETA - (+) - BROMO -D-(+) - GLUCOSE, which one is more stable ? and why?
Great Video Thank You!
These are the best fucking videos on the web
very clear！ thanks a lot
great lecture!!!!
In your beta-1,4 glycosidic bond with D-galactose and D-glucose, your galactose is incorrect. The -OH groups should be down, up, up, and then the glycosidic bond. This is a minor detail that you should be getting right, instead of confusing others.
you're describing D-mannopyrannose. He has it right; Galactose with its -OH groups is up, up, down and then glycosidic bond at the anomeric carbon
GREAT video Thank you
+Reem Zidan thanks!
you're a beast. thank you so much
thank u so much sir. you are a life saver
Yafeth Koletkar glad to help! :)
Thank you so much
Thanks for perfect explanation.:)
Thank you very much!
Thanks!
Awesome! Thank you for this :)
Freddo Fredericko welcome Freddo !
Cab you please explain more on hemiacetal
Isn't the OH on the Carbon #1 of the D glucose of the (B-1,4 Glycosidic linkage) supposed to be pointing downward in the drawn figure?
very clear and concise, your videos are awesome and get to the meat of it, with repetition that is right on point. Thank you
You re right he made one more mistake. In fructose he did not inverted the fructose molecule. If he had done it the oh groups at 3rd and 4th carbon would have been facing opposite direction. Which would have been the right structure of sucrose
@@mid1chosen he has it drawn like in my textbook and on online, although I personally thought it would have been drawn differently.
6:00 - Non-reducing sugars
Find this lesson exciting
For a lactose, why is it not a 1,3 bond but a 1,4. If your counting carbons shouldnt you start at the CH2OH
The CH2OH is actually the last carbon. Carbon number 1 is located and the functional group. (anomeric carbon)
thanks for this awesome lecture, it all makes sense to me now :)
What is the full name of lactose?
We meet again. 😂😁👍
sir your shirt is rlly annoying me, can you please roll it down. but other than that, thanks so much for teaching me
Me too lmao
you are fuckin great
yassssss
I was looking for a video on a simple explanation of a glycosidic bond.
I think you have just brain damaged me..
Joseph Taggart probably shouldn't watch my lectures then ;-)
Lol, it seems your domain is biochemistry. I am going to be moving into medicine, and I currently teach biology, but this is way too chemistry heavy for me.
Your videos look good, but I am just out of my depth with your material.
And nah, perhaps if I stick to them I can learn something right? Or just more brain damage.
Which devilish place produces an accent like this? Never heard anything like it.
PLF Russia, I'd guess.
New York lmao, he's from New York
You clearly know the material very very well, but if I might, I would recommend you work on your inflection. Your voice goes up and down way too much during a sentence, and your sentences turned in to run-ons far too often and convoluted the information you were conveying.
his voice is great just the way it is bro. not everyone enjoys monotonous voices like you
Great explanation...thank you
Thank you so much