Talk:Choline/Archive 1

Wikiprojects update

I have updated the information from the Chemicals and Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiprojects above (although I am unable to access the full version of the paper online and marked that a full citation is needed). I have also removed a recent edit that cited the impermeability of Choline to the Blood-Brain barrier as it seemed at odds with the information from the NEJM (which suggests that choline supplements can have a direct effect on the brain) and did not cite its sources (perhaps OR?).SupernautRemix 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Acetylcholine

The neurotransmitter acetylcholine is converted into choline and acetic acid by the enzyme acetylcholinesterase.

Isn't choline converted into acetylcholine? Crusadeonilliteracy 13:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Acetylcholine is built from its components within neurons, but once released into the synaptic cleft it is digested by the esterase so that the signal it is relaying is stopped quickly. Both (catabolic and anabolic) processes are happening continually.

On a different topic: The chemical formula on this page isn't very helpful in discerning structure. In fact, it has confused the hell out of me. Anyone got a diagram?

Here's a trick – type 'choline' into images.google.com. It gave me this right away. You've got three methyls and a C2H4OH all bound to N⁺. It's ionicly bound to X^– where X can be OH or anything else that forms a negative ion. Anybody want to take a crack at a better diagram? David.Throop 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical uses

I notice a lot of health stores and online pharmacies are selling choline tablets. Perhaps someone with the requisite knowledge could add to this article an explanation of what it's used for. —Psychonaut 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Pharmaceutical uses

Using choline as a supplement is (by now) supported by some human studies, where choline deficiency associates with birth deffects. However, ther are not enough human studies to really demonstrate that choline supplementation could really solve this problem, nor if over-supplementation is clean of any side-effects (as it happens for instance with Vitamin A). User:Mdnic 15 May 2006

I'd heard that Choline mobilises fat deposits and this is why it is in health supplements. Haven't got a reference though...

Choline is also used a lot as a 'smart drug', because of the central role that acetylcholine plays in a lot of cognitive systems. I've added a reference to this to the article, but my neuropsychology isn't too hot these days (never was to be honest) so I can't give as many details as this would merit. There's a lot of info out there if anyone is inclined to sift through it... User:SupernautRemix 62.6.249.131 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Eggs are rich in choline, which your body uses to produce the

neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Researchers at Boston University found that when healthy young adults were given the drug scopolamine, which blocks acetylcholine receptors in the brain, it significantly reduced their ability to remember word pairs. Low levels of acetylcholine are also associated with Alzheimer's disease, and some studies suggest that boosting dietary intake may slow age-related memory loss."

- from  http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18625011.900

One wonders whether the upswing in Alzheimer's is due to all of those folks watching their cholesterol and avoiding too many eggs. 210.50.176.52 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Ian Ison

Choline is also used in the treatment of liver disorders, elevated cholesterol levels, Alzheimer's disease, and bipolar depression. I've also heard that it is used as a supplement in treating hepatitis, glaucoma, atherosclerosis, asthma, eczema, alcoholism, etc. Healthycare (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Choline as an essential nutrient

To all authors on Choline,

   I have just erased the introductory phrase. Choline is not essential for cardiovascular

function (if so, please send me the reference). Acetylcholine is essential for neuronal and neuro-muscular transmission of the impulse, but this is covered by another article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdnic (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

New England Journal of Medicine "citation needed"

I searched PubMed for the New England Journal of Medicine article about choline (the one with citation needed), and I found a 1979 article titled "Choline and lecithin in the treatment of neurological disorders." It's so old that there's no full-text online. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=431620&ordinalpos=39&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

So, at this point, I can't confirm or deny that statement about choline possibly exacerbating depression. Derekawesome 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Invented By Whom?

Hello. Didn't Charles Best discover choline as what Britannica says? Thanks. --Mayfare 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

bitartrate vs citrartate

I'm wondering what is the difference between the two! Maybe the article should mention it Althena (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as citrartate. Where did you see that?

Ben (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Choline citrate is probably what is meant. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The text begins with Choline is an organic compound - is this correct? Or should the text begin with choline is an organic cation? From the article, it seems that choline forms organic salts when paired with an anion, but it's not a compound itself. Albmont (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects

Do you think if adding side effects of using choline will be appropriate for this page? For instance, the dietary choline intake might increase the risk of cancer of the colon and rectum. Anyone knows other side effects? Healthycare (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"increase the risk of cancer of the colon and rectum". Are there any references?

Headache is mentioned here without references: http://examine.com/supplements/Choline/#howtotake

Chemistry

Do you think you can update the definition of choline as an amine with the following information: "The definition of an amine is a derivative of ammonia in which one, two or three hydrogen atoms have been replaced by an organic group. Amines have one (primary), two (secondary) or three (tertiary) organic groups connected to the nitrogen atom and contain a basic nitrogen atom with a lone electron pair.

Unlike the amines, quaternary ammonium cations contain a permanently, positively charged nitrogen atom (no lone electron pair remains). The nitrogen atom is connected to four organic groups and is no longer basic." --Ldcalvin (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that info belongs in the links that are given in the phrase "quaternary saturated amine". How about editing those links if necessary?Puffysphere (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You are correct. I have clarification. The suggestion is to change it to "Choline is a quaternary saturated ammonium compound" as opposed to a quaternary saturated amine. I do have third party research - Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition on Choline and Quaternary Ammonium Compounds. Does this make more sense now? Ldcalvin (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Ldcalvin

Choline and cancer

I took out an old comment that choline "might" increase risk of colorectal cancer. The 2nd reference does not really support this idea. The first reference is very old and doesn't seem to be online. The references that were given are still in the text of the article, commented out, if you want to look at them.

There has been recent research that shows no association between choline and colorectal cancer, cited in the article. I didn't find any research on Medline that shows such an association. However choline was connected to colon polyps. Puffysphere (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

suspected typo

IMHO 8 gm of soy lecithin (or 8 gm of anything) would have a hard time providing 250 gm (rather than mg ) of choline *please review for my sanity and that of others* thanks

seems to have been fixed. Thanks for fixing my typos. I've been sick, I haven't been keeping track of this article. Puffysphere (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me...

The last part of the article looks like blatant spam to me:

Long Term Memory Preservation and Memory Performances as a Result of Fetal Choline Consumption

"For more information on this topic, search for this review on www.pubmed.com: Caudill, MA. Pre- and postnatal health: evidence of increased choline needs.J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Aug;110(8):1198-206." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.30.148 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Stomach issues and Phosphatidylcholine

Dial, E. J.; Zayat, M.; Lopez-Storey, M.; Tran, D.; Lichtenberger, L. (2008). "Oral Phosphatidylcholine Preserves the Gastrointestinal Mucosal Barrier During Lps-Induced Inflammation". Shock. 30 (6): 729–733. doi:10.1097/SHK.0b013e318173e8d4. PMID 18496240. Although the article and sone source says that oral Phosphatidylcholine causes stomach issues, this study suggests otherwise. I don't have time to thoroughly check this, but perhaps someone else could?Testem (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

% adequate intake - someone please add dont know how

here are the percentages in correct order for women 111,2941176 26,58823529 44,70588235 35,29411765 40,70588235 7,058823529 27,29411765 41,64705882 26,58823529 47,52941176 33,41176471 25,41176471 28 31,76470588 4,470588235 12,70588235 18,11764706 17,41176471

here are the percentages in correct order for men 86 20,54545455 34,54545455 27,27272727 31,45454545 5,454545455 21,09090909 32,18181818 20,54545455 36,72727273 25,81818182 19,63636364 21,63636364 24,54545455 3,454545455 9,818181818 14 13,45454545 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odarcan (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not clear what these numbers meant. AIs are now in a table, and there is a brief mention of great majority not achieving AI.David notMD (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Groups at risk for deficiency" section

While this section might be beneficial support for the article, there is no explanation at all for why vegans, vegetarians, athletes, alcohol consumers, and those "who do not eat many whole eggs" would be at-risk groups for choline deficiency. It is particularly confusing for readers, considering that, right below that section, there is a long list of dozens of animal and plant sources of choline (and eggs are only one source).

In other words, the section comes across as misleading PR rather than an accurate description of the literature. Either this section should be re-written to explain why those groups are at risk, or perhaps it might be appropriate to remove the line entirely. Even the article that cites benefits of eggs does not claim that those who do not eat many whole eggs are at risk of choline deficiency.

Rob Shepard (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Choline salicylate

Choline salicylate is redirected here, but there is no mention of the salicylate aspect. I looked it up as it is listed as the main ingredient of a mouth ulcer gel. Anyone know how choline salicylate differs? ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction revision

Entire third paragraph needs rewrite or deletion. Benefits of choline are not perceived, they are known, hence it's essential status. The sentence "Despite the perceived benefits of choline, dietary recommendations have discouraged people from eating certain high-choline foods, such as eggs and fatty meats." is not directly from the study referenced, but a survey that the referenced study references that estimated the intakes, and an anecdotal quote. (Yikes right?) It mplies causation where there is none. Leading the reader. Non-scientific reasoning.

This is the meta reference:

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/21/6/LB46-c

Note the footnote (Partial support: the Egg Nutrition Center) There's a reason these things are hidden in layers.

Must quote the entire referenced paragraph and include it's references (see the above study's ref 26) if context is to be understood as they were not the conclusions of the referenced study:

"Because of increased risks of cancer and stroke associated with hormone replacement therapy, current recommendations for hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women suggest that treatment be limited to short periods to reduce menopausal symptoms (25). At the same time, dietary recommendations have discouraged women from consuming high-choline foods such as eggs and fatty meats, and the 2005 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that only 2% of postmenopausal women consume the recommended intake of this nutrient (26, 27). Thus, postmenopausal women, especially those with SNPs in genes that increase the dietary requirements for choline (11, 28), may be at increased risk of low choline–related liver or muscle dysfunction when their estrogen concentrations decline."

See also the referenced study's ref 27:

"choline is not currently in the food consumption survey databases used to produce nationally representative intake estimates."

It's best to quote the initial reference. Which is quite poor in both cases. It all feels very sloppy and pedestrian.

96.51.221.241 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

References issue.

The References [9] contain senseless link "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choline&action=submit#" Where i can subscribe (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Correlation between Cardiovascular disease and choline?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/nature09922.html seems to suggest that high levels of choline correlate with increased CVD risks. Can somebody probe into this deeper, or add it (with appropriate caution - it is just one study) into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.182.190 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@59.149.182.190: I agree with your concern. I read the study and this information should be referred in the article. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. That one article is based on lab studies only (mice), and therefore is not established human evidence worthy for the article, WP:PRIMARY. This seems to be the state of the art: "Evidence to confirm the suggested effects of choline on health in different stages of life is scarce. Potential effects of choline need to be confirmed by intervention studies." --Zefr (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Zefr Thanks for intervening. This is not my area, and my comments were to contribute just a little. Got here by a coincide. However, my sense is that you are taking my confirmation of the above comment as if I am disagreeing with the usefulness of choline. No. For what I know, in the literature and in personal experience, this is a good. However, as a WP article that tries to give all the information to readers, this study should appear in it. Otherwise, it would appear as if the editors are trying to hide something. We are still learning about this and other supplements, and we don't know what the future would look like. For the moment, this study is marginal, and does not prove anything, but acknowledging it is like putting all the cards on the table. It enhances the article's credibility. Otherwise, it is like giving the impression that the editors behind this article are trying to lead the readers. That's my two-cents. I have not stake on this, but the way we choose the evidence and the way WP attempts to have a neutral point WP:NPOV. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Caballero/Historiador: there is already a lengthy preliminary research discussion, not all confirmed in humans, under "Health effects". The higher standard to address an anti-disease effect requires status as a drug (as under "Pharmaceutical uses") and needs to comply with WP:MEDRS which the proposed reference does not. It might be mentioned as research in progress, but I would say that it isn't strong or advanced enough to include in the article. --Zefr (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling? "Cation"

It must be I am unfamiliar with the subject, but just in case: the word "cation," used in the introduction of this article, is not misspelling, isn't? Cation often refers to a charged ion. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Food sources of choline

"The following are choline values for a selection of foods in quantities that people may consume in a day." People don't actually consume raw beef liver in most parts of the world due to raw liver texture and pathogen contamination of raw beef, they do not consume raw soybeans which are toxic, or uncooked quinoa which contains saponin, an irritant. So why are these items even listed as foods that people may consume? There is no basis established to presume that similar cooked foods will have the same values, yet this is the practical use that will be made of this information by readers. The reference given for raw soybeans actually indicates "bean sprouts", not simply raw beans as listed in the table. Sprouting changes the nutritional profile of seeds and beans, as well as the shape, texture, moisture, and weight of a serving. Soybean sprouts still need cooking. It seems unlikely that most people would consume a full cup measure of wheat germ in one day, or an entire quart of milk. The unlikely servings require the reader to recalculate portions for no reason, or be misled if they do not notice. This table could benefit from some reworking, or simply removal if accurate information is not available.172.58.67.107 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Affected by heat?

Most of the rich dietary sources listed for choline are cooked (such as cauliflower) but the first and richest source listed is raw liver. What happens to its choline when the liver is cooked? And if a given amount of egg or lecithin is added to foods as a nutritional supplement, does cooking (or temperature during storage) change the amount of choline available from it? (Oh, and please could someone add lecithin to the dietary sources table?) --Egmonster (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like that table because the units are inconsistent (they are presented as serving sizes, but who would eat a pound of cauliflower?), making comparisons for intrinsic choline content impossible. This is why the USDA and science generally choose a standard unit of measure such as 100 gram amounts. This ranking table from the USDA nutrient database lists choline content in mg per 100 gram amounts of processed, raw or cooked foods. Dried egg yolk (perhaps a personal favorite food of "Egmonster") has exceptional content 7x higher than raw beef liver because cooking/drying removes the dilutional effect of water content. The USDA ranking list allows comparisons of raw vs cooked foods that indicate choline is not destroyed by cooking, e.g., raw egg yolk contains 820 mg per 100 g whereas cooked dried egg yolk contains 2403 mg per 100 g. Braised or pan-fried beef liver has about 25% higher choline content (~420 mg per 100 g) than does raw beef liver (333 mg per 100 g, USDA).

Raw cauliflower is not rich in choline (44 mg per 100 g, USDA) and soy lecithin is listed as high in content only for the oil (350 mg per 100 g). I would favor replacing the current table to more accurately reflect choline content per standard measure (100 g) for foods as shown on the USDA ranking list. --Zefr (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Choline/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, individuals with depression and manic-depressive disorder appear to be hypersensitive to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, choline should not be taken in a dose that exceeds the amount in a multiple vitamin. Avoid Choline and the amino acids ornithine and afginine. These substances may make symptoms of Manic Depression/depression worse.

Last edited at 06:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Choline. 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/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721073038/http://www.mayoclinic.org:80/news2012-rst/7157.html to http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2012-rst/7157.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed content

I could not understand this: Methionine and folate are known to interact with choline while homocysteine is undergoing methylation to produce methionine. Recent studies have shown that choline deficiency may have adverse effects, even when sufficient amounts of methionine and folate are present. This seems overly specialized: Choline chloride can form a low-melting deep eutectic solvent mixture with urea with unusual properties. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Appearance

The latest big update by 5-HT2AR changed added "appearance= viscous deliquescent liquid". Obviously this depends on the salt. I know from my own OR that the bitartrate is a white crystalline powder. I think the hydroxide salt is a liquid and I'm sure others are too. I don't have access to the reference used so I can't tell which one it refers to. Searching the currently used CAS number on sigma-aldrich returns the OH- salt solution [1] (but that appears to also have CAS 123-41-1). Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, choline hydroxide was what I was referring to. It is now fixed. 5-HT2AR (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Here are some more salts and their CAS numbers if someone wants to add them to the infobox:

• Choline chloride 67‐48‐1, white crystalline solid
• Choline dihydrogen citrate 77‐91‐8, white granular to fine‐crystalline powder
• Choline hydrogen tartrate 87‐67‐2, white crystalline powder
• Choline bicarbonate 78‐73‐9
• Choline gluconate 608‐59‐3, hygroscopic yellow mass

All from here:

Atwater, Charles (2001-01-15), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA (ed.), "Choline", Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. a07_039, doi:10.1002/14356007.a07_039, ISBN 9783527306732, retrieved 2019-10-23

Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent revert

Zefr, in this edit you reverted some major changes by 5-HT2AR with the edit summary : Revert English grammar mess; work in your sandbox first; restore Chemistry section per Smokefoot. I have just reviewed the changes by 5-HT2AR after that user posted a request for review at the Teahouse. I don't see any major grammar problems in the edits by 5-HT2AR. In fact, in a few places those edits seemed to me to make minor improvements in the grammar. I am not an expert in chemistry, although i know enough to follow the article, and do not have enough knowledge to judge if the revisions improve the content of the article, or follow the sources, and so i did not just revert. But if they are really being reverted on the basis of factual disputes or issues, that should be said openly.

Zefr if you seriously think that there are grammar problems in this revision please point them out specifically. If you think the rewrites done by 5-HT2AR afre not improvements as a matter of substance, then please say that and why.

5-HT2AR undertaking major rewrites of well established articles without previous discussion and consensus that a rewrite is needed is often not a good approach, although there is no rule against it. We are now are the "discuss" phase of the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Can you please indicate why you think your changes were improvements? Peerhaps we might achive consensus on how to further improve the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, DESiegel. Before anyone start arguing or anything, I'd want to say that I have no intention to spread false info and I am totally open to criticism directed towards my writings. I also write a lot to finnish Wikipedia, and I am used to making large edits in finnish, but a bit unfamiliar with large edits to english Wikipedia. The main reason for my large edit was to make the articles's structure more modular/defined and to add biochemistry details about choline/its metabolites. 5-HT2AR (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that at least these are spelling mistakes (within this):

• SMS2s also occurs → SMS2s also occur
• Choline is via enzymes → Choline is oxidized via enzymes
• in human body → in the human body
• for BHMT-enzyme → for the BHMT-enzyme
• enterocytes via portal vein → enterocytes via the portal vein

5-HT2AR (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have written a completely new version of this article. It is here as an editable draft. I intend to replace the current article with it perhaps in a week. I have fixed the grammar problems to the best of my ability. As I am not a native english speaker, there might still be errors, which I hope someone might spot in addition to other improvements. I think my fixed version improves the article and reverting it just because of grammar errors (that could easily be fixed in the draft if spotted) would be a poor excuse. Especially if these things are considered:

The current article has "medical citations needed". My version is primarily referenced with an EFSA paper and the conclusions presented in it were used 2016 to derive EU-wide intake recommendations for choline. I think that suffices to remove this banner or at least improves the current situation.

Things like proper biochemistry (with enzymes and transporters), poroper history and excess dosage are lacking in the current article, but oddly enough there is a lengthly discussion about fetus development and lactation. While we are at it, this section is poorly formatted (lots of brackets and no wikilinks) and uses sources from e.g. 1978.

Overall structure of the current article just isn't good and lacks important details.

Other things:

Chembox:

• PubChem CID 6209 redirects to chloline chloride instead of this.

History section:

• the first time when choline was isolated was not in 1862.
• Liebrich was not the first to synthetize choline in and the first synthesis was not in 1865.

Chemistry section:

• "The chloride salt is hygroscopic and thus often encountered as a colorless viscous hydrated syrup." Source doesn't claim this. The hydroxide salt (choline base) has this appearance according to the source.

In humans section:

• This section is initially collapsed in the mobile view and looking up info on the phone could be simplified by dividing this section to multiple headings.
• the "Choline metabolism" pic is not explained well in the article or on its page. For example, that is AHCY? You won't know unless you already know.

Dietary sources of choline section:

• "Some animals cannot produce choline" - source doesn't claim this.

Food table:

• As stated here previously, the food table isn't helpful.

5-HT2AR (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

5-HT2AR: thanks for pointing out the errors, and for being open to Teahouse help and input from other editors here on the talk page. To support reinstatement of your proposed changes – especially this edit – I suggest you ask other chemistry editors to review them for content accuracy. I had concerns about your section on "Excess" where PMID 30997120 was used - that source and content impress as a scientific opinion rather than a WP:MEDREV review, and so fall within WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. I also felt your discussion about choline content in egg yolk was overemphasized. Note that the discussion in EFSA Journal about choline content in yolks here as it relates to TMAO blood levels was only from 6 subjects, i.e., primary research and not a review. A suggestion when making a significant content change (as I see you have done during an edit conflict with this message): propose it first on the talk page, with marked sections where the changes occur, to allow other editors to clearly see the proposed changes. Your outline above today is helpful, but let's have other editors review it as well. --Zefr (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look up some reviewers. If you can think of anyone, maybe you'll ping them?

There may be more robust reviews than PMID 30997120. I am also doubtful about the "competing intrests" mentioned in it, but it is new (2019), open access and brings together nicely the confusing state of the TMA and TMAO related mortality. You didn't mention this, but I also know that PMID 31167879 is a primary source, but it was the only study I found with any evidence about the causal direction the TMA/TMAO related mortality. As there seems to be too little studies, it is hard to say anything about TMA or TMAO without some uncertainty. At least this uncertainty should be highlighted somehow if PMID 30997120 or PMID 31167879 get edited out. Alternatively meta-analyses like PMID 31288869 and PMID 28686188 could be used as sources, but as you can see, these have confusing results. Listing "this study said no", "this yes" etc. doesn't help the reader and might as well be left unsaid or summarized as "contradicting results" - virtually the same thing as the aforementioned "uncertainty".

To the second part, choline content of yolk in the section "Content in foods" is a kind of curiosity (similar to kakadu-plum here), but it is also a common food (unlike kakadu plum). Maybe it shouldn't be mentioned specifically in the introduction, and just "hen eggs" would suffice.

To the third part, TMAO and egg yolk are not mentioned within the same sentences or even sections in the draft. The study on 6 people is also left unmentioned. Yolk choline content in the EFSA paper is sourced from the USDA nutrient database. I am not sure what you mean by primary in this part? 5-HT2AR (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Replace entire article ?!?!

5-HT2AR has proposed replacing the entire Choline article with Draft:Choline. I am adamantly against replacing an article that has undergone hundreds of edits over years with a new version that borrows extensively from the existing article and yet would have no editing history to that article. I see that in the past 5-HT2AR has done major rewrites of existing articles. This is preferred. I also recommend one section at a time, for example deleting the existing History section (badly placed at beginning of article) and replacing it with the proposed History section, inserted near the end of the article, as has been done in the vitamin articles. Lastly, I disagree with 5-HT2AR 'editor shopping' by asking me, Boghog and Headbomb to help with a review of the draft. There are editors who have had an active, recent involvement with the Choline article (Zefr, I enjoy sandwiches, Smokefoot). The right place for any such discussion is here. I have not compared the draft to the existing article, and therefor am expressing no opinion as to being better or worse. All I am disagreeing with is the proposed replacement. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. One section revision at a time, then wait for other editors to comment or revise. 5-HT2AR: you can work from your draft to put one section forward for review, preferably here on the talk page first. --Zefr (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Much preferred to take one section at a time. I have looked at the draft, and I think there is a lot of good material in it, but it will require additional edits to integrate it into the main space article. Boghog (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Lets do it piece by piece then. I'll wait for a number of days, (1.) then replace the existing history section, (2.) then the current food table with the draft's "Content in foods", (3.) then probably recommendations and studies on intake. Then (4.), functions in humans/other organisms. After that, (5.) biochemistry/metabolism whilst trying to add some of the existing info on pregnancy/lactation to the draft's data. Lastly, (6.) excessive intake and its health effects. 5-HT2AR (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Since nothing has happened in the last two weeks, I reorganized some of the material in the draft and then copied over the material from Draft:Choline#Function and Draft:Choline#Metabolism and sections (tasks #4 and #5 from above) and tried to intregrate into existing content while removing the old redundant material. Boghog (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the remainders from the draft and probably won't be doing more edits. I removed mentions about the transporters not used for choline transport that you mentioned in the invisible comment within the article. SLC44A5 is not used for choline transport as far as I know, but seems to partake in phosphatidylcholine synthesis (https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q8NCS7). I'm not sure what you mean with the two other comments: "a lot of this seems redundant to the metabolism section. I think this should go first." and "bile salts? am I remembering this right?". 5-HT2AR (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the merger. The comments were not from me. I agreed with focusing on de novo biosynthesis, agonistic on moving function before metabolism, and saw little redundancy. Boghog (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

more medical citations needed

Does this article need this template anymore? Most of the article is well sourced in my opinion. 5-HT2AR (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Excess daily dosage

I changed the excess daily dosage to "Excessive consumption of choline (≥7,500 mg)" from reference 4, rather than the previous "(8–20 g/day)" from reference 6, because reference 6 only applies to "individuals with tardive dyskinesia and Huntington's disease." Furthermore, reference 4 states "The tolerable upper intake level (UL) for adults is 3,500 mg/day." which is far higher than 8-20 g/day. JD Lambert^(T|C) 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)