Biochem texts other than Lehninger

[Teleologist]

Not a fan of Lehninger. The diagrams are convoluted. I don't like looking at Haworth projections and Fischer projections. Why can't there be more chairs and line-angle diagrams like in any organic chemistry text? Sure, I could convert the Haworths and Fischers to line-angle forms as I'm used to after taking two semesters of organic chemistry ... but I'd rather not do this. Even the professor draws chairs and line-angle diagrams in class, so having to go through the book and seeing something that looks totally different is jarring.

So, is there any biochem text written with line-angle diagrams and chairs?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hospitalized]

http://biochem.science.oregonstate.edu/files/bbnew/ahern/BiochemistryFreeEasy1.pdf

Kevin Ahern has really great biochemistry lectures as well.

 

[Teleologist]

I hate Lehninger. I've only read it for few hours and I found two obvious errors.

For example, why is the structure in the brackets missing a carbon? It magically reappears again later on the far right.

Also, is that a methyl group on glucose??!

Am I crazy from staying up too late or what?

 

[Fedekz]

The image of glucose 6-phosphate looks correct to me ...

Edit: now I see what you're talking about. They probably shouldn't have the dash pointing down from carbon #5

 

[Mad Jack]

I like Mark's Basic Biochemistry. The first page of every chapter sums up each pathway in two to three paragraphs and the diagrams are excellent. Even in medical school, I still find myself frequently referring back to it, as it is far less convoluted than Lippincott's.

 

[Mad Jack]

I hate Lehninger. I've only read it for few hours and I found two obvious errors.

For example, why is the structure in the brackets missing a carbon? It magically reappears again later on the far right.

View attachment 190902

Also, is that a methyl group on glucose??!

View attachment 190903

Am I crazy from staying up too late or what?

Most biochem books don't use the chairs. Disregard my prior recommendation, as it is also big on Haworths and Fishers for diagrams. This is largely due to the nature of biochemistry- it is geared more toward biologists and health scientists, not chemists, so the more complex chairs and such are sort of viewed as superfluous and needlessly confusing. Biochemistry is (at least in my experience, at the introductory and medical school level) more concerned with function and functional groups than it is with geometry and simple reactivity.

 

[Lawpy]

Not a fan of Lehninger. The diagrams are convoluted. I don't like looking at Haworth projections and Fischer projections. Why can't there be more chairs and line-angle diagrams like in any organic chemistry text? Sure, I could convert the Haworths and Fischers to line-angle forms as I'm used to after taking two semesters of organic chemistry ... but I'd rather not do this. Even the professor draws chairs and line-angle diagrams in class, so having to go through the book and seeing something that looks totally different is jarring.

So, is there any biochem text written with line-angle diagrams and chairs?

You could try out Voet Biochemistry.

And my sympathies to your struggling in an organic chemistry-structured biochem course. My biochem course was focused on memorizing every single pathway there exists, with a heavy focus on regulation. Not easy, but it was very much significant to my personal research interests, so it helped.

 

[Theafoni]

Also, is that a methyl group on glucose??!

View attachment 190903

Am I crazy from staying up too late or what?

Some textbooks dont draw the H's

 

[Lawpy]

Some textbooks dont draw the H's

That's true but:

View attachment 190903

Am I crazy from staying up too late or what?

The H's were drawn for this except for the highlighted carbon mentioned by OP, so it would suggest a methyl group. Talk about inconsistency!

 

[Teleologist]

That's true but:



The H's were drawn for this except for the highlighted carbon mentioned by OP, so it would suggest a methyl group. Talk about inconsistency!

Well that's the methyl vs H issue is relatively minor admittedly.

The bigger issue is how in the imine formation mechanism a carbon disappears only to reappear. See above. Had me confused for a minute.

 

[jqueb29]

Lippincott's for sure