Talk:Chrysin

Estrogen article

I tried to add some references and discussion of results that show it's ineffectiveness. I added references to existing publications already referenced, but wasn't sure how to do this (e.g., now there are multiple Saarinen,2001 references). Revampedcomplexity (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But...

anti-aromatase but it's also phytoestrogenic, giving you estrogen.

==

In vitro studies did demonstrate chrysin as an aromatase inhibitor. Anecdotal evidence suggests that chrysin is soluble in Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) and can therein penetrate cell membranes.

==

If something is phytoestrogenic, it can block estrogen receptors from more powerful estrogenic compounds, thereby being anti-estrogen. Also, after the sentence

"Unfortunately, follow-up studies determined that cell membranes effectively block chrysin from entering the cells and having any effect at all on estrogen levels in biological organisms.[8][13][3]"  

-The first study cited actually provides evidence that chrysin works as well as a pharmaceutical drug in blocking estrogen production from testosterone. -The second study listed has nothing to do with chrysin. It is a study in which young men were given andro and had their testosterone and estrogen levels measured in the following weeks. -The third study listed concludes that chrysin is not an effective aromatase inhibitor when taken orally. This fact is not disputed and, in fact, is why chrysin is often given transdermally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.92.230 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Camomille

Camomille page claims this is its active compound, but this page does not link back. --Squidonius (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable

Why was it reverted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Because what you wrote didn't make sense (what does the "role" do?), and because the book used merely cites one piece of Chinese primary research without any analytic insight, so is not in any meaningful sense secondary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"It is primarily found in honey, propolis, and the passion flowers Passiflora caerulea and Passiflora incarnata, and in Oroxylum indicum.[1]" Why was the citation removed for this claim? QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned with the human health claims; if you want to put reliable stuff in more carefully without these, go ahead. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is okay. There is limited content on health claims][1][2] by publisher Elsevier. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Quantities in sources

It says "It occurs in small quantities[failed verification] in honey, propolis, the passion flowers, Passiflora caerulea and Passiflora incarnata, and in Oroxylum indicum.[1]" I propose we go back to the content in the lead that passed V. See this change. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You are more likely to find suitable sources if you e.g. look for literature reviews on PubMed (examples: pmid:27829351, pmid:28694744, pmid:28435252, pmid:25182716, pmid:25125885). It's much better than cherry picking out of 900 potential sources. Nemo 19:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that chrysin is a major constituent in any source, particularly since polyphenol groups generally are present in only mg/100 g amounts. In honey, for example, total polyphenol content is low. It appears chrysin is present in << 0.5 mg/100 g amounts. PMID 27547032, PMID 15997855 are examples showing "small quantities". --Zefr (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

For the lead we can go back to the previously sourced content and start a new section in the body under "Occurrence" for quantities in sources. We can start with honey for the new section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Occurrence

I started Chrysin#Occurrence and other sections. I also replaced failed verification content, with verifiable content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Address supplement use?

Although not the most complete sources, the FDA and WebMD discuss the supplement uses, with appropriate safety concerns and cautions. Should we have this back and sourced in the article? --Zefr (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's on the FDA's radar, that suggests it would be due. Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism of action

This review discusses the "Mechanism of action". Also read the conclusion. See "Chrysin, a natural polyphenol, appears to possess a blend of anticarcinogenic, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic, antimetastatic, immunomodulatory, antioxidant and antimutagenic activities. (Fig.4) The molecular mechanisms underlying the pleotropic activities of chrysin are diverse and involve combinations of cell signaling pathways at multiple levels of tumorigenesis."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not reliable pharmacology or mechanisms of action, but rather alt med conjecture and spin. At best, it's a review of primary studies not adequately advanced by better studies. Definitely not MEDRS or worth mentioning. --Zefr (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

What about "These studies suggest that chrysin not only has a cytotoxic potential, but can also increase the antitumor activity of chemotherapeutic drugs and overcome the resistance by sensitizing them to apoptosis."[4]? QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We use a couple of refs for cytotoxic activity which remains an in vitro finding only, so extrapolating to chemotherapeutic drug mechanisms is conjecture. This seems adequate as is. --Zefr (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no content regarding the mechanism of action. I think we can briefly summarise "The molecular mechanisms underlying the pleotropic activities of chrysin are diverse and involve combinations of cell signaling pathways at multiple levels of tumorigenesis."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's in vitro work, so this is still an area of early preliminary research, indicating it shouldn't be presented as something stated so assertively as "diverse and involve combinations of cell signaling pathways at multiple levels of tumorigenesis." That's conjecture, WP:CRYSTAL. --Zefr (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how it is written. Proposal, Based on in vitro studies, the molecular mechanisms regarding the pleotropic activities of chrysin are complex.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

One does not determine mechanism in a clinical trial. That what in vitro work is for. The problem is that in vitro does not always translate into effects in animals which in turn does not always translate into humans. If the translation does hold, then the in vitro studies can be used to infer the mechanism in humans. Determining mechanism in humans is impractical and unethical. If a compound produces a phenotypic response in a cell line, then experiments done on the cell line can be used to determine the mechanism. This is a self-contained set of experiments. Whether is holds in humans is completely irrelevant as long as it is not implied that the results will also hold true in humans. Per WP:MEDANIMAL: In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on in vitro studies, the molecular mechanisms regarding the pleotropic activities of chrysin are complex. The majority of in vitro studies conclude that chrysin causes apoptosis in different tumor cell lines, but the mechanism of induction of apoptosis is still not clear. Published studies are frequently disorderly and occasionally contradictory.

References

The content is very useful. See WP:MEDANIMAL. The review can be add to the body of the article rather than remaining in the "Further reading" section. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The remaining further reading article by Khoo et al. (2010) on in vitro findings about apoptosis is redundant with the more recent (2015) Kasala article. The other message in MEDANIMAL is that we should avoid cherry-picking a finding which the Khoo authors state: "Studies published so far are often haphazard and sometimes contradictory." This is a weak source which should be deleted. --Zefr (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I expanded it. Now it reads "Based on in vitro studies, the molecular mechanisms regarding the pleotropic activities of chrysin are complex.[1] The majority of in vitro studies conclude that chrysin causes apoptosis in different tumor cell lines, but the mechanism of induction of apoptosis is still not clear.[2] Published studies are frequently disorderly and occasionally contradictory.[2]"

The proposal from both quality reviews is from the conclusion. If part of content is redundant it can be condensed. QuackGuru (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible SYN violation

..."indicating its potential in anticancer research.[7][8][improper synthesis?]" Not sure about that. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another possible SYN violation

"From in vitro studies, it displayed toxic and antiproliferative effects on isolated cancer cells through induction of apoptosis.[14][15]" Do both citations verify all the content? If they don't we may have another SYN violation. The edit summary suggests both citations don't verify the same content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The SYN is still in the article and can be fixed by removing the SYN violation. I don't think both sources verify the same content. They are making different claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For over 6 months the issues have not been addressed. To avoid a SYN violation, it may be better to split them into two separate sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

After over 6 months I fixed the purported SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass encyclopedic content deleted

Mass encyclopedic content was deleted and sourced content was replaced with misleading content. There is also a source that appears to be a MEDRS violation. I disagree with deleting encyclopedic content cited to reviews and replacing it with very little content. QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary in vitro and lab research are unencyclopedic per WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDANIMAL. As a scan for Pubmed review articles shows, there are no WP:MEDRS-quality studies on chrysin to cite, and mention of early-stage lab studies is unencyclopedic. Concerning efficacy and safety mentioned in the lede here, the FDA committee review is a satisfactory -- although not ideal -- source, stating on efficacy and safety, "References provided in the nomination do not include clinical safety or efficacy data for chrysin", plus other discussion about the absence of evidence for efficacy and safety. Removing the FV tag. If you have an acceptable MEDRS review, please provide it. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary in vitro and lab research are not unencyclopedic when cited to reviews per WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDANIMAL. Both WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDANIMAL do not state such content cited to reviews is unencyclopedic. The MEDRS violation content is the primary research.

The part "References provided in the nomination do not include clinical safety or efficacy data for chrysin"[7] does not verify "but its efficacy and safety have not been adequately defined." Because they did not include the research does not mean it does not exist or efficacy and safety have not been adequately defined. What they did not say is not verifiable. What they did not include is also not verifiable. Hence, the FV tag. The acceptable MEDRS sources were wiped out. Many editors worked on expanding the section. For medical content, we use reviews or other MEDRS compliant sources, rather than lab research. Checking the article history back in October of 2017, there was a lot more content in the Research section.

There are other problems. Every time the FDA source is used in this article it fails verification. See "but its efficacy and safety have not been adequately defined.[3]" See "although other reviews describe that its safety is not yet adequately evaluated.[3]" See "As of 2016, there is no evidence for chrysin in human clinical applications" See "It is not recommended for use as an ingredient in topical medications.[3]"

I'll pick one of the examples above. The article says "It is not recommended for use as an ingredient in topical medications.[3]"

The source says "No clinical anticancer or hormone modifying activity demonstrated with oral or topical formulations"[8] The source also says "We do not recommend chrysin be included on the list of bulk drug substances that can be used in compounding under section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act based on consideration of the following criteria: (1) physicochemical characterization; (2) safety; (3) effectiveness; and (4) historical use of the substance in compounding."[9] The content in the article is very different than what the source says. That means the content fails verification.

The failed verification content using the 2016 FDA source began on 22:34, 28 October 2017. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Aromatase Inhibitor

As the article is currently written, it seems rather odd to simply state that it is shown ineffective as an aromatase inhibitor when given orally. Wouldn't it make sense to explain that such studies are of interest because the IN VITRO studies did show aromatase inhibition? Then it could be added that although those studies showed potential for aromatase inhibition in vitro, the in vivo studies on orally administered Chrysin did not show significant effect. I will gather some of the sources for the in vitro studies. BenjaminMan (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary research and speculation

Although in good faith, this edit was based almost entirely on lab studies and speculation about anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant effects, which all are far from factual. There is only one good review – the PubChem article – and there are no acceptable clinical studies. --Zefr (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)