7 ms·
Why not make both isomers and feed them to bacteria? Only left-handed remains.
by tomp 4y ago
Why not make both isomers and feed them to bacteria? Only left-handed remains.
- actionfromafar 4y agoIt's gotta be something more to than that, even 50-50% sugar would be a great product in its own right.
- tablespoon 4y agoMaybe the problem is more with synthesizing sugar without biological help. After some cursory googling, it sounds like many artificial sweeteners are several orders of magnitude "sweeter" than table sugar, so you'd have to synthesize far more L-sucrose to get a similar effect.
- actionfromafar 4y agoTrue, you'd need tablespoons of it. :-/
- PaulHoule 4y agoIt seems with all the bacteria out there it seems like there would be one that does something obnoxious with L-sucrose.
- canadianfella 4y ago
- morepork 4y agoFructose is about 50% sweeter than sugar (sucrose), so you can save calories by substituting 2/3 of the quantity of sucrose with fructose
- jb_s 4y agoFructose is metabolised differently IIRC and carries greater risks if anything, possibly this is why HFCS is worse for you.
- morepork 4y agoHFCS isn't particularly high in fructose. Sucrose is essentially 1:1 fructose to glucose. HFCS is typically either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest glucose, so basically the same. Honey and agave nectar are also similar. I can't say I'm an expert, but I haven't seen anything where consuming fructose is worse overall than other sugars. Fruits for example also tend to be high in fructose, and if you're going to have sugars they tend to be one of the best ways.
- gowld 4y ago> Why not make both isomers and feed them to bacteria? Only left-handed remains. The hard part is synthesis, not separation.
- adwn 4y agoJust a heads up: you seem to be shadow-banned, all your posts are flagged.
- Traubenfuchs 4y agoHis post looks normal to me... Apparently he got unshadowbanned recently.
- adwn 4y agoI vouched for a couple of them; the others are still dead.
- Traubenfuchs 4y agoinsidious
- eternalban 4y agoWhat posts? It shows empty for me.
- Veliladon 4y agoBecause we have effectively infinite amounts of d-glucose in the biosphere and that's incredibly hard to compete with on cost.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoAlso there's more than one stereocenter in "generalized glucose"
- foxhill 4y agoif we could make racemic glucose (i.e. a 50:50 split of D/L-glucose), the battle would be done. you'd expect to see this if we had a purely synthetic process for the creation of glucose in the lab. but, as far as i know, we only have other biological processes that produce glucose, and as such, only produce the one isomer.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoIt is 100% possible to make glucose synthetically, racemically or otherwise. I believe it was done in the 60s and iirc sharpless used sugar synthesis to demonstrate the power of asymmetric epoxidation (which he won the Nobel for). It is however very not economical to do so
- monkeywork 4y agoI've seen the economics talked about a few times in this thread but having no experience at all with the industry - what is the difference between economical and not in actual dollar values? If you were to produce a KG of this vs say our common art-sweetners what is the cost multipler
- throwawaymaths 4y agoWell keep in mind that stuff like sucralose may be more expensive to make but it's also selected because it's way more potent, so there's a lot of filler (usually cyclodextrin?) To fill out a packet and make a cooking/flavoring equivalent. Though I'm not 100% sure maybe sucralose is made by enzymatically installing those halogens? I could be very wrong.
- twobitshifter 4y agoSpeaking of filler, it seems the experiment in question didn’t control for that? Since there’s so little artificial sweetener is it possible the gut flora are reacting to the filler?
- Haga 4y ago