Talk:Pyridoxal phosphate

Toxicity

There is one in vitro study indicating that an overdose of B6 kills cell cultures, while P5P does not. It is assumed that ingesting P5P will be harmless. This is plausible but unproven, so I changed "will" to "perhaps might". Jethomas5 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I'm redirecting this to Vitamin B6; anyone feel free to expand it into an article if you have something to say about apart from what's covered in Vitamin B6. — Knowledge Seeker দ 7 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)

Metabolized into what? Biological Synthesis section needs expansion. --SuperstrainX5 (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of vitamine B6 activity

Can anybody tell me the percentage of vitamin B6 (activity) in pyridoxal phosphate? itsme (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads that PLP is a prosthetic group but I think it is rather a cofactor. The difference is, that prosthetic groups are permanently bound to the enzyme and cofactors are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.147.232 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The molecular formula or the ball and stick model seems wrong. C8 H10 N O6 P - 2 too many H or the model needs 2 more H. Or have I missed something? This 3D model shows 2 more H ^[1]

References

^ http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.1022.html?rid=962d3aeb-afcf-47bd-8d7f-e9470723fe29

Msjs08 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ball and stick model seems fine, though it is at physiological protonation states so the phosphate group is dianionic, which is what you meant about 2 more H. The convention with molecular formulas is to write them as neutral compounds, so the phosphate group is fully protonated, despite its low pKa. Louisa.star (talk 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalytic mechanism (Scheme)

In the last reaction shown in the reaction scheme, it should read 'NH3', not 'NH2', right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gncs (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gncs Yes, indeed. As well, as the lysine should be deprotonated in the previous step. Der Hanke (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC name

The IUPAC name is listed as '[(4-formyl-5-hydroxy-6-methylpyridin-3-yl)methoxy]phosphonic acid', which (obviously) seems wrong to me, and according to the structure depicted. Said structure clearly depicts an X-methyl phosphate and not an X-methoxy phosphonic acid, since it does not contain any C-P bond. Please note, I am no expert on the topical biochemistry. I am, however, certain about the chemical nomenclature, even though ^[1] agrees with the given name. Sadly.

References

^ http://www.chemicalize.org/structure/#!mol=pyridoxal+phosphate&source=fp

Nicolas Seufert (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

If "the L in PLP does not indicate a levorotatory chiral center", then what DOES it stand for? The given information is almost as useless as saying nothing, isn't it?. I've looked it up on the web but couldn't get a proper answer... Thanks.

--91.117.64.67 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Moving here, as this is unsourced, per WP:PRESERVE. The content is also not encyclopedic - we don't say things like, "it should be noted..." See WP:MOS

Etymology

PLP stands for pyridoxal 5' phosphate and PMP stands for pyridoxamine 5' phosphate. Consequently, the L in PLP does not indicate a levorotatory chiral center.

The common names pyridoxamine (aminomethyl group at position 4), pyroxidal (carbaldehyde group) and pyridoxine (alkaloid, has hydroxymethyl) derive from pyridine + oxy + a IUPAC suffix.Pyridine, in turn, comes from the Greek πῦρ, πυρός (pyr, fire) + -ide + -ine. It should be noted that the oxy infix in pyridoxine is not based on Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature (the heterocyclic ring is simply a modified pyridine) and the pyr- root does not indicate it to be a dimeric acid anhydride (unlike pyrophosphate).

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

transaldiminated

Note: What does it means by the term "transaldiminated"? What is the formal definition for the term "transaldimination"? One of the few journals that used the term "transaldimination" is from NCBI by Moore PS, Dominici P and Voltattorni CB (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8789463). Another more recent publication from the Russian Journal of General Chemistry by F. V. Pishchugin (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1070363213060121). If the term "transaldimination" indeed acceptable, can a clear definition and a page be made about it? Are there any alternative terms that can explain this concept clearly and precisely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyvov (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyvov trans, as a prefix is very well accepted, I guess. It is used in many publications and reaction types as a descriptive term, like trans-metallation, trans-esterification, trans-aminase, ect.

I think the meaning of trans-aldimination should be clear enough. Der Hanke (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.1022.html?rid=962d3aeb-afcf-47bd-8d7f-e9470723fe29

[2] ttp://www.chemicalize.org/structure/#!mol=pyridoxal+phosphate&source=fp

[1]

[1]