Nature Is Not Ambidextrous

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Why Nature favors making left-handed proteins and right-handed carbohydrates is one of the great mysteries of life, as Sarah Everts explains in the May issue of Scientific American. By contrast, the manufacturing processes used by pharmaceutical companies are far less discriminating—typically producing right- and left-handed versions of the desired compounds in equal numbers.

Such molecules are mirror images of each other. Each version consists of the same component atoms arranged in the same order, but the two versions, referred to as enantiomers by scientists, cannot be superimposed on each other. Similarly, if you look at your right and left hand, you can see that—barring accident—they are mirror images of each other but you cannot lay one on top of the other and have the fingers match up.  

For many years, researchers assumed that mixtures of enantiomers wouldn’t make much of a practical difference when it came to making medicines. The body would respond to the appropriate mirror molecule and ignore the other compound. Unfortunately, for a variety of complex chemical and biological reasons, that has turned out not to be the case. In some instances, for example, what you would normally expect to be the inactive enantiomer ends up being toxic instead. Or the body will convert even pure quantities of one enantiomer into a mixture of both versions.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The exact details can be quite difficult to decipher. When scientists were trying to figure out why the sleeping pill known as thalidomide caused birth defects in the early 1960s, they first focused on the fact that the drug comes in a right-handed form and a left-handed form. Studies conducted in mice and rats in the late 1970s concluded that the left-handed enantiomer was responsible for birth defects while the right-handed version acted as a sedative. So thalidomide would have been safe in people, so the thinking went, had it consisted of only the right-handed molecule.

But that conclusion turned out to be too hasty. Studies on rabbits, which are more closely related to humans than rodents, showed that both enantiomers could cause birth defects. Furthermore, experiments in the 1990s showed that even pure preparations of right-handed thalidomide into mixtures of right- and left-handed molecules in the human body. So not only could you be making a deadly mistake in thinking that the right-handed version of thalidomide is safe, it doesn’t even matter whether or not it is because once in the body at least some of the right-handed enantiomer will quickly turn into the left-handed form, which is known to be unsafe.

Just to make matters even more complicated, sometimes a mix of right-handed and left-handed enantiomers of the same molecule is safer and more effective as a drug than a “pure” version of either mirror image because the two forms keep each other—and their disparate side effectives—in check.
 
If all this organic chemistry is triggering nightmarish flashbacks, listen in as Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich reflect on the lighter side of Nature’s handiwork (get it?) in this podcast

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe