Talk:Coenzyme Q10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Typical dosage

What are typical dosages used when Coenzyme Q10 is taken as a dietary supplement?

30 mg with each meal seems a popular suggestion, but lower and higher doses are used as well. Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I second that. If you have a medical condition, you may want to take more than 30x2 a day, although I wouldn't do that for long without medical supervision.
As per [1]:
CoQ10 has a good safety profile. Daily doses of 50-100mg are well tolerated. Reported side effects are rare, but tend to be various forms of epigastric distress (heartburn, nausea, stomach ache) which can be prevented by consuming the supplement with a meal.
Intakes of 100-200 mg per day have been studied with no apparent adverse side effects, but muscle damage has been noted in at least one study of 120 mg per day over 20 days (perhaps due to a pro-oxidant effect and free radical damage in the muscle).
As per [2]:
Adult levels of supplementation are usually 30–90 mg per day, although people with specific health conditions may supplement with higher levels (with the involvement of a physician). Most of the research on heart conditions has used 90–150 mg of CoQ10 per day. People with cancer who consider taking much higher amounts should discuss this issue with a doctor before supplementing.
Also see [3] for info from NIH. --Amit 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-hypertensive

Coenzyme Q10 has been described as an anti-hypertensive in several good-seeming studies (see a review) but this aspect of its use as a supplement is not listed in the article. As I don't feel authoritative on the topic I simply point this possible omission out for potential rectification by an expert. -- cmh 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This does seem well-established (the NIH web page on CoQ10, classifies this as being the application of CoQ10 for which there is the best supporting evidence. The code B they give this application is defined as "Good scientific evidence for this use". Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the analysis on the before mentioned page since it is not possible to understand on what basis the classification is given. I have looked up some of the references and they weren't convincing at all. To the contrary both the AAFP as an revieuw done in the annals of pharmocotherapy doubt the use of Q10 as a treatment option.

Links: AAFP [4] Ann Pharmocoth [5]

[edit] Dietary Sources

As a "Vitamin", the Co Q should have Dietary Sources (natural, herbs, ...), along with the dried powder.--Connection 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and citation

This page looks great. Please make footnotes to the articles for each thing I've put a 'citation needed' flag next to, just to steamline the references. Thanks

Added some. Not exhaustive at all. Used the cite template. Hope that helps! :-) Jon 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does production decrease with age?

Why does the body's production of CoQ decrease with age? What produces CoQ? Is it produced by a gland? What can be done to prevent the decrease of production in the first place? Beyond the classroom 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious cleanup needed

This article reads like an advertisement for supplement companies that sell this chemical compound. Much of the article is written in an an unencyclopedic informal tone. Some of the external links appear to be spam. Even some of the "references" are spam-like links to a ad-heavy Wiki site - hardly a reliable source. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up if someone more knowledgeable doesn't help out soon. Deli nk

I have reverted to an earlier version that didn't contain most of the material that I determined to be inappropriate. Some of the material I removed may be added back in if suitable sourcing for the claims can be found. I also removed external links that didn't meet guidelines at WP:EL and replaced spam-like references that didn't meet WP:RS with {{fact}} tags. Deli nk 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titel

I suggest to change the titel to "Coenzyme Q10". In the research world (biochemical, clinical, etc.) and in real live the term "Coenzyme Q" is virtually not used. On Google "Coenzyme Q10" has about 1,1 million hits. "Coenzyme Q" has about 0,55 million hits, of which most, if you check, refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (or "Coenzyme Q-10") anyhow. Moreover, the biggest part of the references and of the external links of this article refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (and not to "Coenzyme Q"). So I suggest renaming the title and adding one paragraph about other (side-)chain length Qs. Furthermore, the international academic research is coordinated by "The International Coenzyme Q10 Association". So I also think that the drawing of CoQ3 should be changed in a drawing with CoQn (and saying that n=10 for CoQ10)Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


ah shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.138.203 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singh

Unless somebody has other info I will delete the reference to Singh soon, because it was found that this researcher was engaged in fraud. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

done Peter Lambrechts 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits/function

I think this should be put in one paragraph, which I plan to do in the near future. Current article does not describe well enough the main function of CoQ10 in the body: Energy. (95% of all ATP is made through intermediation of this molecule). 2nd is antioxidant: eg. against endogeneous made radicals (in the mitochondria) as well;it's unique antioxidant function in the recuperation of the active form of Vitamin E, its preventive function on LDL; etc.Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. D.E. Wolf

Unless somebody has a good reason than I will delete the name of Dr. Wolf soon and have it replaced by Professor Karl Folkers and coworkers at Merck, Inc. The merit goes to Prof Folkers. Peter Lambrechts 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased editor?

Please be advised that Peter Lambrechts is Business Developer for Kaneka Pharma, a manufacturer of Q10 dietary supplements. He may therefore not qualify as unbiased. Please review his edits and the references. 83.83.20.55 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI His contributions to the Dutch article on Q10 have been reverted today. Wammes Waggle 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The debate on the Dutch page carries on; perhaps we should look at this article more closely for objective information Huijts 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence not based in reality removed

I'm Dutch so please excuse my English... However, I found a sentence in the article that I just cannot agree with. It says something like: "Coenzyme Q10 is used widely to treat breast cancer, heart disease and gum disease". It was asked for a reference, but I think this is just BS. Coenzyme Q10 is just NOT widely used to treat any of these diseases, and certainly is not used widely to treat breast cancer or heart disease. The author who originally placed this sentence put a link there to support his claim, but this link now gives you a wikipedia-like page that has all kinds of claims that are not valid or proven, stating for example what a shame it is that people with heart disease sometimes get open heart surgery while they could also take some Q10 (and live happily ever after).

Perhaps, perhaps using coenzyme Q10 could help some people (in particular people who might be low in their natural Q10) in preventing disease. (I am not sure this has been proven without a doubt for ANY illness in normal people; I know of some very very rare metabolic disorders where people do not produce coenzyme Q10 for themselves and then you do get ill and treatment with Q10 helps.) . But this product surely can't cure you when you do have breast cancer or heart disease. You really need to see a real doctor!

So I found this sentence dangerous and untrue and removed it. Huijts 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


PS. I found out later that on the removed link page it states that Q10 is widely used in Japan to treat heart disease and so on... Well, I wouldn't be able to check that... Anyone here living in Japan or being able to read Japanese?? Huijts 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that CoQ10 had drug status in Japan from the seventies till ca. 2001. Then it changed to food supplement status. Peter Lambrechts 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In Martindale (The complete drug reference)edition 2007, you can read for ubiquinone (=drug name for Q10) the following: "....It has been given by mouth as an adjunct in cardiovascular disorders, including mild or moderate heart failure. It has also been tried in other conditions associated with coenzyme deficiency, and is promoted as a dietary supplement. Ubidecarenone is under investigation for the management of Huntington's chorea ( ) and parkinsonism....".
Ubimaior is on of the (many) commercial names in Italy for Q10 as a drug used for therapeutic indication of acute and chronic hard disease ("...Deficienze del coenzima Q10 ed alterazioni del metabolismo del miocardio in cardiopatie acute e croniche..."). Peter Lambrechts 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


I removed a series of suspect statements and testimonials posted into this discussion section from the overtly biased editor 'Gentlewar', who needs to read the 'Talk page guidelines' before reposting. 'Gentlewar', please be aware that Wikipedia discussion pages are not a venue for promoting a product but are, rather, a place to discuss the content of the article being discussed. The goal is to improve the unbiased and objective content of the article under discussion. Overtly biased and unsourced content, particularly enthusiastic and unsourced testimonials, make all of your posted content suspect. For instance, within your first sentence, the unsourced "Verified by the FDA" statement immediately appeared suspect. A brief visit to the FDA website found no 'verification' of the properties of this coenzyme, but only an FDA judgement of a statement submitted as required by regulation by a manufacturer. The manufacturer indicated that they were making certain statments about their sold nutrient(s). Their statements included the following: "Research on CoQ- 10 has identified its role as a powerful antioxidant and has indicated that CoQ-10 supplementation may provide benefit in certain health conditions. In particular, CoQ-10 has been used to help maintain a healthy heart." (emphasis added) The FDA response to the statements included: "We certify the information in this notice is complete and accurate, and we have substantiation that the above statement(s) is truthful and not misleading." This is a far cry from "FDA verified". Finding your FDA statment to be overstated and unreferenced, and that your testimonials did not adhere to Wikipedia content standards, your posting has been deleted. Should you wish to repost, I would encourage you to first read the "Talk page guidelines" to determine how you might improve your discussion post towards the Wiki goals for content. Thanks. Lcph88 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a better reference for CoQ10 Synthesis

Reference 23 shows a nice charts that explains Coq10 synthesis and how statins interfere with its production, but isn't there somewhat more authoritative available? Fogr4 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ubiquinone reduction and e- shuttling

Since the CoQ10 page is included as a member of the Electron transport/oxidative phosphorylation system, shouldn't there be at least a brief section regarding conversion of ubiquinone to ubiquinol and its essential role in shuttling e- from Complexes I and II to complex III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.105.62 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)