Talk:Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mikalra in topic PubMed result.
edit

The article has a great list of references but further reading material is not supplied. For example links to the Princeton page on the EHT discovery, a supplement that contains EHT, and other content not cited in the article but that might expand a users understanding of EHT. Should we add links to this content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etownunder (talkcontribs) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This was all based on PRIMARY sources and written to promote the release of this product, that was developed by Signum, and launched by Nerium, in 2015. see here and [1] and note the creator of this article. Redirect to Signum Biosciences. I took the most recent reviews on PP2 from here and added them to a new section on Protein phosphatase 2 on use of that protein as a biological target for drug discovery. didn't find much else here i could re-use. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Jytdog, I agree with you that the facts that this was written by an interested party and based (almost?) entirely on primary references are problematic, to say the least; but this article is supposed to be about a molecule, Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide, found in coffee, for which there is now a significant amount of interesting research. Surely that merits an article on it, not a redirect to the company that is licensing it out to dietary supplement companies?
Mikalra (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
thanks Mikalra. are you aware of any reviews in the biomedical literature that discuss this molecule? Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Having done a search for such on PubMed and Google Scholar, I find reviews briefly discussing EHT in the course of discussing PP2A as a pharmacological target in neurodegenerative disease, but only giving a paragraph or so of discussion. And two of those were reviews by Signum principals.
User Sigrd, who has disclosed that he or she is a Signum employee, has just reverted your edits; I've put a comment on their user page explaining why you made the changes you did and invited some discussion. If nothing else, perhaps they know of a review.
Mikalra (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

PubMed result.

edit

There is only one Article from a peer review source that addresses EHT directly. In the scientific community this is has promise but not well researched. There will need to be much more research before it is truly accepted. Here is the abstract from the site. Neurobiol Aging. 2014 Dec;35(12):2701-12. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.06.012. Epub 2014 Jun 17.

Therapeutic benefits of a component of coffee in a rat model of Alzheimer's disease.

Basurto-Islas G1, Blanchard J1, Tung YC1, Fernandez JR2, Voronkov M2, Stock M2, Zhang S3, Stock JB4, Iqbal K5.

Abstract

A minor component of coffee unrelated to caffeine, eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide (EHT), provides protection in a rat model for Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this model, viral expression of the phosphoprotein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) endogenous inhibitor, the I2(PP2A), or SET protein in the brains of rats leads to several characteristic features of AD including cognitive impairment, tau hyperphosphorylation, and elevated levels of cytoplasmic amyloid-β protein. Dietary supplementation with EHT for 6-12 months resulted in substantial amelioration of all these defects. The beneficial effects of EHT could be associated with its ability to increase PP2A activity by inhibiting the demethylation of its catalytic subunit PP2Ac. These findings raise the possibility that EHT may make a substantial contribution to the apparent neuroprotective benefits associated with coffee consumption as evidenced by numerous epidemiologic studies indicating that coffee drinkers have substantially lowered risk of developing AD.

Actually, there are several peer-reviewed studies on EHT: see, for starters, those cited in previous versions of the Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide wiki page. The problem, as highlighted in my discussion with User:Jytdog above, is that they're all primary sources (including the one you quote here). This is contrary to Wikipedia's intention to be encyclopedia-like, focusing on well-established facts rather than the latest reports. The WP:VERIFY guideline advises editors to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."Mikalra (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply