Contents

Talk:Polysaccharide

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance). Chemicals: Core High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. Polymers (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers articles

Asummary of this article appears in carbohydrate.

This phrasing found in the page is very loose. What exactly does it mean? Which part of digestion is "enhanced"? Arturj 18 December 2022. I would like this to be disambiguated or removed. — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They tend to be amorphous,
insoluble



in water, and dont have no sweet taste." What should that be?

sounds like a combination of science and jazz! 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only hits on Google for it are for this article and sundry reproductions. Flatus 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that out, no such thing exists.--Lbthrice 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to mention that maize, wheat, etc. are good sources of starch for a biological reason: energy is packaged in starch molecules for later use by the developing embryo after germination?--Lbthrice 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat unclear with defintions. So monosaccharide is a chain with one element and polysaccharide is a chain (of monosaccharide) with more than one (or more than two???) element. I.e. are disaccharides polysaccharides? (anon)

Not according to the disaccharide article. Rod57 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentense in article Glycans:

 "The term glycan refers to a polysaccharide, or oligosaccharide."

While the first sentense in this article Polysaccharide:

 "Polysaccharides (sometimes called glycans) are relatively complex carbohydrates."

They talk about mainly the same thing in different aspects. Maybe these two pages could be combined to one? Dai mingjie 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page could be merged with polysaccharides, if done properly. Also, another thing needed to fix this article is that it presents a lot of redundant information, compared to the article on glycosylation. I didn't notice this when I was writing it, and only found the large degree of similarity afterwords.

My current personal opinion would be that the detailed information in the glycan article on assembly could be replaced with a reference to the glycosylation article. As for polysaccharides, in some ways, this term is synonymous with the term glycan. The question has to be raised then, as to what the title of a merged polysaccharide/glycan article would be?

--corvus.ag 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glycans possess biomecular significance that cannot be adequately conveyed through polysaccharides.

76.65.13.218 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I just read that you suggested to merge the glycan article with the polysaccharide one. I am into the glycobiology field for almost 9 years now and I though there are naturally some similarities (they are all built by monosaccharides), the area of polysaccharides is a completly different one compared to the one of protein linked glycans. Though they are already somewhat described in the chapter glycosylation, I think they should be still considered separately since glycosylation covers a more broaden topic and for glycosylation there are a whole bunch of other glycoconjugates that have to be considered, whereas the glycan article can focus on the protein bound N- and O-linked glycans.

Polysaccharides however are again a total different field and require different methods and aspects compared to glycans, so I would suggest to keep the articles. I will in future also contribute more to this field here in Wikipedia, so there is more information to come.

Cheers --Daniel_Wien 05:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

The following statement in this article needs to be changed:

"Polysaccarides are also essential in the production of catheraltol tissue in the gull bladder. Without these necessary sugars, our Gull bladder would be strained to the point of hypertrophy"

I suggest the following spelling and punctuation corrections: "Polysaccarides are also essential in the production of catheraltol tissue in the gall bladder. Without these necessary sugars, our gall bladder would be strained to the point of hypertrophy."

Also, the statement sounds scientifically unfounded, although I don't have the background (or time, especially today) to check it out. I will try to verify it later.

Cam

71.36.69.136 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on comments above, and my limited interpretation, Polycsaccharide and Glycans seem sufficiently different concepts to each deserve their own article. Therefore I have deleted the suggestion that the articles be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpex (talk • contribs) 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these subsections could use a general description from an expert to enhance the specific examples offered.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to look at this section ... because it won't do as it is!

81.164.129.52 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "date qualification" to the statement "fiber is not yet classified.." of 2005, which appears to be the most recent citation date. It seems like the date of such a "non-endorsement" by governments/etc might be useful.. Especially as the "citable consensus view" about the benefits of fiber might change. For that matter, I don't know whether (as of 2013) it might have changed already. Anyone else care to comment? Thanks. (Is there a general WP policy regarding when to add such qualifications? I read on some talk page that they in general should be avoided) Jimw338 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about having a section that is understandable by someone who is not a scientist? I've got tests for blood clotting and I'd like to know what some of the terms mean. This article gives me no useable information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.201.222 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, polysaccharides contain more than ten monosaccharide units, whereas oligosaccharides contain three through ten monosaccharide units; but the precise cutoff varies somewhat according to convention.

I wrote this, and I know it's better expressed than before; but does the definition really vary in the literature?

178.39.122.125 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]