Carbon—carbon quadruple bond

Quadruple and higher order metal—metal bonds are known for transition metals, lanthanoids and actinoids. But for main group elements? Using four different computational methods, Shaik et al. [1] show that

C₂ and its isoelectronic molecules CN⁺, BN and CB⁻ (each having eight valence electrons) are bound by a quadruple bond. The bonding comprises not only one σ- and two π-bonds, but also one weak ‘inverted’ bond, which can be characterized by the interaction of electrons in two outwardly pointing sp hybrid orbitals.

According to Shaik, the existence of the fourth bond in C₂ suggests that it is not really diradical C₂^2• [2]:

If C₂ were a diradical it would immediately form higher clusters. I think the fact that you can isolate C₂ tells you it has a barrier, small as it may be, to prevent that.

1. Shaik, S., Danovich, D., Wu, W., Su, P., Rzepa, H.S. and Hiberty, P.C. Quadruple bonding in C₂ and analogous eight-valence electron species. Nature Chemistry, in press.
2. Extance, A. Calculations reveal carbon-carbon quadruple bond. Chemistry World, 29 January 2012.

Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research

It’s been a while since I read a science/technology book from back to back. And was it worth it? Definitely.

The book is about collaboration and is a collaboration. Ironically, the best-written chapters almost invariably are those by single authors. Which confirms my own theory that writing (including scientific writing) is not exactly collaborative activity. The contributions by Robert Porter Lynch [1], Robin W. Spencer [2], Victor J. Hruby [3], Edward D. Zanders [4], Brian Pratt [5] and Keith T. Taylor [6] are especially worth noting — I wish the whole book was written at the level of these chapters. Then again, collaboration is always a compromise. The material presented here is diverse and heterogeneous — what did you expect?

I am sure there are people who do all sorts of stuff using their smartphones, including scientific database browsing and chemical structure drawing [7]. This latter activity does not strike me as especially productive or convenient. (Also, makes me glad that the use of mobile phones while driving is outlawed in most of Europe.) In my view, for the purposes of computer graphics bigger is better: if I had a choice, I’d go for HIPerWall (25,600 × 8000 pixels) or, better still, HIPerSpace (35,840 × 8000 pixels) display walls [8]. Then I could draw some really large (in many senses) molecules.

As much as I enjoy reading the real (hardcopy) book, it could be nice to see it online, preferably in open access. For instance, Chapter 25 [9] has 196 references, all of them are URLs, and some of them are rather long ones. I’d love to be able to click on them rather than type!

Will the wikis, virtual communities and cloud computing replace the behemoth pharma companies and NCBI? A man can dream. Ekins et al. write [10]:

As a result of the recent recession there is a lot of drug discovery and development talent available now due to company lay-offs. If the software or other tools to enable this workforce to be productive and collaborate were available and they participated in the existing scientific collaboration networks, then there may be potential for enormous breakthroughs.

I wish I could share the authors’ optimism. Yes there is potential, but it is highly unlikely that unemployed researchers are in the mood to collaborate. In case you wonder why: being unemployed is a full-time occupation, which leaves preciously little spare time. I rather inclined to agree with Robin W. Spencer [2]:

Especially for cutting-edge scientific challenges, the participants you need are probably well paid and not particularly enthused by another tee shirt, coffee cup, or $100 voucher.

More quotes from this book can be found here.

I use this opportunity to lament the decline of old-fashioned copy editing [11]. I get used to the lack of any such luxury in open access publications: if the paper is accepted, the publisher tends to keep all your typos intact. But when you buy a book from John Wiley & Sons for a hundred something bucks, you’d expect some editorial intervention. (To be honest, I did not buy it. I can’t afford buying books at such prices anyway.) The major and minor irritations include:

• Typos: “chpater” instead of “chapter” (p. 281) — I thought by now the text editing software should take care of these.
• Tautologies: ‘The institutes of the national Institutes of Health’ (p. 496); ‘... we need to consider standards specifically for chemistry and biology. In chemistry specifically...’ (p. 202).
• Impenetrable sentences, e.g. ‘Many aspects should be considered, such as a regulatory path for filing, potential market size, differentiability of the therapeutic and experience with and difficulty to carry out clinical trials in the disease of interest’ (p. 252) or ‘This will only be done by drawing from the mental resources of an extended scientific community in an innovative and complex, yet “daily practice”, manner that promises a profound impact on our ability to use existing data to generate new knowledge with the maximum conceivable serendipity’ (p. 454). You what?
• Overabundance of acronyms (have a look at p. 497 and you’ll see what I mean).
• Overabundance of buzz-words of yesteryear: crowdsourcing (see below), integration, leveraging, paradigm, stakeholder and so on. The worst offenders, however, are clear and clearly. Clearly, when these words is used too often, it is clear that something is not quite clear.

Now for “crowdsourcing”: I find the term not only ugly but offensive. As a scientist (once a scientist, always a scientist), I am open to collaboration. Also, as a scientist, I detest being part of a crowd. Period.

Don’t get me wrong: it is a good book. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to any decent scientific library. But it could have been a great book.

1. Lynch, R.P. Collaborative innovation: essential foundation of scientific discovery. In: Ekins, S., Hupcey, M.A.Z. and Williams, A.J. (eds.) Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2011, pp. 19—37.
2. Spencer, R.W. Consistent patterns in large-scale collaboration. Ibid., pp. 99—111.
3. Hruby, V.J. Collaborations between chemists and biologists. Ibid., pp. 113—120.
4. Zanders, E.D. Scientific networking and collaborations. Ibid., pp. 149—160.
5. Pratt, B. Collaborative systems biology: open source, open data, and cloud computing. Ibid., pp. 209—220.
6. Taylor, K.T. Evolution of electronic laboratory notebooks. Ibid., pp. 303—320.
7. Williams, A.J., Arnold, R.J.G., Neylon, C., Spencer, R.W., Schürer, S. and Ekins, S. Current and future challenges for collaborative computational technologies for the life sciences. Ibid., pp. 491—517.
8. He, Z., Ponto, K. and Kuester, F. Collaborative visual analytics environment for imaging genetics. Ibid., pp. 467—490.
9. Bradley, J.-C., Lang, A.S.I.D., Koch, S. and Neylon, C. Collaboration using open notebook science in academia. Ibid., pp. 425—452.
10. Ekins, S., Williams, A.J. and Hupcey, M.A.Z. Standards for collaborative computational technologies for biomedical research. Ibid., pp. 201—208.
11. Clark, A. The lost art of editing. Guardian, 11 February 2011.

Kilogram, pterin, selenium

I really enjoyed the latest issue of Chemistry International. Did you know that pterin is called “pterin” because it was first isolated from butterfly wings, and folic acid is “folic” because it was first found in leafy vegetables (from Latin folium)? I just learned that from Edward Taylor’s illuminating article on Alimta [1].

Next, two papers on kilogram in the “New SI”. Currently, kilogram is defined as a unit of mass equal to mass of the international prototype kilogram (IPK), which is a cylinder made of 90% platinum—10% iridium alloy kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France. The problem is, IPK is losing mass! But even if it did not, it is still not good that one of SI base units is linked to an artifact rather than to something more fundamental. The chemist in me prefers the definition of kilo based on carbon-12 mass [2] to the one based on Planck constant [3].


Finally, essay by Jan Trofast on discovery of selenium [4]. I didn’t know that Swedes discovered so many elements!

1. Taylor, E.C. (2011) From the wings of butterflies: The discovery and synthesis of Alimta. Chemistry International 33, 4—8.
2. Censullo, A.C., Hill, T.P. and Miller, J. (2011) Part I — From the current “kilogram problem” to a proposed definition. Chemistry International 33, 9—12.
3. Mills, I. (2011) Part II — Explicit-constant definitions for the kilogram and for the mole. Chemistry International 33, 12—15.
4. Trofast, J. (2011) Berzelius’ discovery of selenium. Chemistry International 33, 16—19.

Icosahedrite

In 1982, Dan Shechtman observed unusual diffraction pattern in aluminium—manganese alloy [1, 2]. Almost 30 years later, he was awarded The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 “for the discovery of quasicrystals”.

Earlier this year, the first naturally occurring quasicrystal was described. Icosahedrite Al₆₃Cu₂₄Fe₁₃ is a new mineral found in southeastern Chukhotka, Russia. It is named “for the icosahedral symmetry of its internal atomic structure, as observed in its diffraction pattern” [3].

1. Shechtman, D., Blech, I., Gratias, D. and Cahn, J. (1984) Metallic phase with long-range orientational order and no translational symmetry. Physical Review Letters 53, 1951—1953.
2. Fernholm, A. (2011) Crystals of golden proportions. Nobelprize.org.
3. Bindi, L., Steinhardt, P.J., Yao, N. and Lu, P.J. (2011) Icosahedrite, Al₆₃Cu₂₄Fe₁₃, the first natural quasicrystal. American Mineralogist 96, 928—931.

Do we need the terminal e?

Chemical English, after all, is just a subset of English. As such, it suffers the same problem as English in general: the pronunciation of the words is far from obvious. What makes it worse for chemistry is absence of any authoritative pronunciation guide. (Since the last year’s post on this topic, the audio guide “Pronunciation of Chemical Terms”, originally hosted by Hong Kong Cyber Campus, has disappeared from the web.)

You’d think that the chemical terminology was developed after the Great Vowel Shift and therefore there must be less of gap between the spoken and written word. You’d be wrong. The gap is there, a-gaping.

For instance, the effect of silent terminal e on pronunciation of English words, including chemical terms, is simply unpredictable. Sometimes the terminal e makes no difference: both thiamine and thiamin are pronounced and mean the same. (Cf. “win” and “wine”.) In some other cases, it makes a lot of difference: chlorine (chemical element number 17) and chlorin (tetrapyrrole), or silicon (chemical element number 14) and silicone (a class of silicon-containing polymers).

Protein vs cysteine; cisplatin vs astatine; krypton vs ketone; phenol vs pyrrole — what is the point of terminal es? Wouldn’t we all be better off without them? That will spare us a few rules about elision of terminal vowels, for example.

Sometimes metal just plain rusts

Our stainless steel forks and knives, which in England were literally stainless, even spotless, for years, here on Fuerteventura developed rust stains in a matter of days. What’s the matter?

I found this lovely quote from Brion Toss’s book [1]:

Sometimes metal just plain rusts. Stainless steel rusts more slowly, but tropical climates will get to it in just a few years. Galvanized steel left untended can dissolve in a matter of months.

Well said, but what exactly is wrong with “tropical climates”? High humidity and high temperature, that’s what.

But wait. Humidity in Fuerteventura is not higher than in England, right? We hardly have any rain on this island. But the temperature is definitely higher. As is the case with most chemical reactions, the corrosion rate increases with increasing temperature. Add to this salt air. (Salt acts as a catalyst of rusting.) No wonder cars rust quickly here.

Ah well, we always can use the chopsticks.

1. Toss, B. (1998) The Complete Rigger's Apprentice: Tools and Techniques for Modern and Traditional Rigging. International Marine/Ragged Mountain Press, Camden, Maine.

CYP7A1—cholest-4-en-3-one complex

The crystal structure of human CYP7A1 (cholesterol 7α-monooxygenase) in complex with cholest-4-en-3-one has been solved [1].

1. PDB:3SN5