Talk:Macromolecule

IUPAC recommendation
I have removed the following text from the article (currently in a hidden comment):

According to IUPAC recommendations the term macromolecule is reserved for an individual molecule, and the term polymer is used as to denote a substance composed of macromolecules. Polymer may also be employed unambiguously as an adjective, according to accepted usage, e.g. polymer blend, polymer molecule.

The reasons are as follows:


 * The sentences are lifted verbatim from a 1996 IUPAC report. The citation is not noted in quotations and may constitute plagiarism.  Original Source
 * The IUPAC recommendation appears to be an attempt to disambiguate the usage of the term polymeramong polymer scientists. The full report (here) suggests that the terms macromolecules and polymer molecule are indistinguishable.  This may be true for the narrow purview of polymer science but ignores the well-established practice of describing large biologicall molecules (such as proteins, which are rarely described as polymers) or lipids (definitely not polymers) as macromolecules.

That being said, the referenced IUPAC report has some valuable information which should be added in future revisions to the article. Irene Ringworm 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The DNA,_RNA_and_proteins:_The_three_essential_macromolecules_of_life page is an in depth discussion of DNA, RNA and protein and the main Macromolecule page is pretty short.


 * Merge - I think they could sensibly be combined if the synthetic macromolecule section was also expanded to balance the influx of biological information. The DNA, RNA, protein page has far fewer visits but currently the more useful information. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the articles, since I think that the information is useful here and macromolecule gets 4 times the traffic. I've also edited the prose to fit encyclopaedic style a little more. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 06:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a branched biopolymers section. Someone with more chemistry knowledge will have to deal with synthetic macromolecules. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 06:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Old talk section moved over from DNA, RNA and proteins: The three essential macromolecules of life
The purpose of this article is to provide a single location whereby people who are confused about molecular biology can come to understand the functional and chemical differences between DNA, RNA and proteins. John Mackenzie Burke (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

General Comments
I found the article to be heavily focused on linear polymers, such as DNA and RNA. In fact, a bulk of the article revolves around the central dogma and how DNA encodes the for RNA, which will ultimately encode proteins. Also, there is a clear bias, in that the author uses words like "far better" when phrases such as "more efficient" can be used to separate the functional consequences of the structures of both DNA and RNA. The section on branched polymers is quite sparse, and ideally, should include the specific alpha and beta linkages that are seen amongst glucose polymers to form glycogen, cellulose, and etc. Yes, there are links to those aforementioned articles, however, a brief discussion may be useful. As mentioned earlier, there is a clear preference for biological macromolecules and very little material devoted to synthetic macromoleculesPolymer33 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the "Properties" section of the article could use extensive editing and addition of material. As of now, it only mentions insolubility and alteration of rates/equilibrium constants. There is also a lack of good citations in this section. More properties should be added, such as crystallinity, heat conductivity, permeability, thermal expansion, etc. It should also be explained more in depth in the beginning of this section why exactly there are different properties for macromolecules compared to smaller molecules. Then, this can be expanded to relate to the specific properties that are important for macromolecules, as mentioned previously. -Polymersrock (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The article did a good job at defining the term "macromolecule" by covering its usage in a variety of disciplines such as biology and chemistry, and the intricacies of its IUPAC definition. However, the section on "Properties" could be improved and appears to be in need of additional information and citations. For example, more information could be provided to explain specifically how macromolecules have unusual properties that do not occur for smaller molecules. Furthermore, I think the article placed a lot of emphasis on linear bipolymers including DNA, RNA, and proteins, and could expand more on the sections focused on branched bipolymers and synthetic macromolecules. Also, citations should be incorporated into the "Synthetic Macromolecules" section to offer more credibility. Chemdartmouth115 (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The structure of this article seems confusing to me. The article introduces macromolecules by dividing the topic into two main categories: biopolymers and synthetic macromolecules. However, the synthetic macromolecules part takes only one paragraph. In addition, the author mentioned macrocycles in the lead but it is not explained in the article. The biopolymers section only includes linear polymers and branched polymers. This article is more about linear biopolymers but not macromolecules.--Nekosenseiii (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a quick comment on the Figure "dendrimers". A typical dendrimer may have several generations so that it can be called "macromolecules", but the one shown on the figure has only one generation, and should only be counted as "a large molecule" instead of "a very large molecule". Alanzhangyj (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Macromolecule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317004747/http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1571&DID=5972 to http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1571&DID=5972
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223103549/http://www.iupac.org/reports/1996/6812jenkins/6812basicterms.pdf to http://www.iupac.org/reports/1996/6812jenkins/6812basicterms.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121210113828/http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl05.htm to http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

'macromolecule' vs 'polymer'

 * Note left in mainspace article lead by IP:

Note: You'll notice that the article on macromolecules seems to imply that 'macromolecule' and 'polymer' are synonymous. They are not, at least not to those chemists working in the field. - 15:41, 3 February 2020  2405:204:a021:a4b0:c249:2573:2351:1114  (talk)

Non-biological macromolecules
Diamonds, graphene, carbon fibers (nano-tubules), and silicone analogs constitute a large unaddressed category of macromolecules that might reasonably be addressed here. Boldklub-PJs (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)