Does the Location of Line-Dash-Wedge Notations Matter? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Line structure of formaldehydeWedge Dash Diagram of 1,2-DichloroethaneDoes the arrangement of atoms around a chiral carbon matter?Single line equilibria notationDoes all organic matter originate from organisms?When does a reaction equation require the reversible sign and when does it not?Absolute configuration when hydrogen (lowest priority group) is in the plane of the page (and not a wedge or dash)R,S Configuration of asymmetric carbon atom when group priority 3 and 4 are not on wedge bond?What does the colon in µ-η2:η2-O2 mean?Hash and Wedge nomenclature

What is an "asse" in Elizabethan English?

The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?

Project Euler #1 in C++

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?

How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?

How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?

How many time has Arya actually used Needle?

Understanding p-Values using an example

Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

Does any scripture mention that forms of God or Goddess are symbolic?

Why datecode is SO IMPORTANT to chip manufacturers?

What initially awakened the Balrog?

Mechanism of oxidative dearomatisation with hypervalent iodine

What to do with repeated rejections for phd position

Find Maximum of any discrete function (not necessarily a PDF)

How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?

How could we fake a moon landing now?

How did Fremen produce and carry enough thumpers to use Sandworms as de facto Ubers?

Converted a Scalar function to a TVF function for parallel execution-Still running in Serial mode

How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?

What does Turing mean by this statement?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?



Does the Location of Line-Dash-Wedge Notations Matter?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Line structure of formaldehydeWedge Dash Diagram of 1,2-DichloroethaneDoes the arrangement of atoms around a chiral carbon matter?Single line equilibria notationDoes all organic matter originate from organisms?When does a reaction equation require the reversible sign and when does it not?Absolute configuration when hydrogen (lowest priority group) is in the plane of the page (and not a wedge or dash)R,S Configuration of asymmetric carbon atom when group priority 3 and 4 are not on wedge bond?What does the colon in µ-η2:η2-O2 mean?Hash and Wedge nomenclature










8












$begingroup$


In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?



For example, a THC molecule.



THC molecule 1



The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?



THC molecule 2



I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan Neretin
    Mar 23 at 7:02















8












$begingroup$


In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?



For example, a THC molecule.



THC molecule 1



The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?



THC molecule 2



I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan Neretin
    Mar 23 at 7:02













8












8








8





$begingroup$


In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?



For example, a THC molecule.



THC molecule 1



The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?



THC molecule 2



I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?



For example, a THC molecule.



THC molecule 1



The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?



THC molecule 2



I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.







organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 23 at 8:38









andselisk

19.7k665128




19.7k665128










asked Mar 23 at 6:10









Westin JohnsonWestin Johnson

441




441







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan Neretin
    Mar 23 at 7:02












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan Neretin
    Mar 23 at 7:02







2




2




$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02




$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.



From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:




ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms



Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.



enter image description here




From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:




GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn



Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.



enter image description here



[...]



When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here



If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.



enter image description here



Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.



enter image description here



A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.



enter image description here



It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.



enter image description here



Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here




References



  1. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)

  2. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)





share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 12:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
    $endgroup$
    – R.M.
    Mar 23 at 14:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 19:41











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111394%2fdoes-the-location-of-line-dash-wedge-notations-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









11












$begingroup$

Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.



From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:




ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms



Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.



enter image description here




From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:




GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn



Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.



enter image description here



[...]



When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here



If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.



enter image description here



Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.



enter image description here



A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.



enter image description here



It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.



enter image description here



Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here




References



  1. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)

  2. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)





share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 12:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
    $endgroup$
    – R.M.
    Mar 23 at 14:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 19:41















11












$begingroup$

Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.



From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:




ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms



Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.



enter image description here




From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:




GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn



Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.



enter image description here



[...]



When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here



If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.



enter image description here



Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.



enter image description here



A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.



enter image description here



It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.



enter image description here



Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here




References



  1. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)

  2. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)





share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 12:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
    $endgroup$
    – R.M.
    Mar 23 at 14:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 19:41













11












11








11





$begingroup$

Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.



From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:




ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms



Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.



enter image description here




From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:




GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn



Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.



enter image description here



[...]



When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here



If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.



enter image description here



Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.



enter image description here



A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.



enter image description here



It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.



enter image description here



Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here




References



  1. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)

  2. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)





share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.



From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:




ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms



Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.



enter image description here




From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:




GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn



Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.



enter image description here



[...]



When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here



If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.



enter image description here



Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.



enter image description here



A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.



enter image description here



It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.



enter image description here



Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.



enter image description here




References



  1. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)

  2. Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 23 at 8:46

























answered Mar 23 at 8:34









andseliskandselisk

19.7k665128




19.7k665128











  • $begingroup$
    I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 12:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
    $endgroup$
    – R.M.
    Mar 23 at 14:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 19:41
















  • $begingroup$
    I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 12:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
    $endgroup$
    – R.M.
    Mar 23 at 14:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
    $endgroup$
    – Zhe
    Mar 23 at 19:41















$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05




$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05




2




2




$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01




$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01




1




1




$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41




$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111394%2fdoes-the-location-of-line-dash-wedge-notations-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029