Talk:Polyphenol antioxidant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did You Know An entry from Polyphenol antioxidant appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 June 2006.
Wikipedia

++Lar: t/c 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To-do list for Polyphenol antioxidant: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Details of human digestion and absorption of polyphenol antioxidants, e.g. [1]

Some General Concerns and A Possible Clarification

I have raised a similar concern about the Wikipedia section on antioxidants, but some of these concerns are worth repeating here. The fundamental issue is the confusion or conflation of the totality of polyphenol effects with a simple reduction of reactive oxygen species.

It is clear that numerous classical polyphenol antioxidants have a host of other effects on cellular mechanisms beyond reduction of reactive oxygen species, including what appears to be a common down-regulation of nuclear factor kappa B (a transcription factor widely regarded as a fundamental link between chronic inflammation and the eventual generation of cancer). It may turn out that numerous phytochemicals protect us from cancer not primarily because of reduction of reactive oxygen species and associated damage to DNA but also because of their inhibitory effects on NF kappa B, and their associated promotion of apoptosis in damaged cells. Additionally, the classic polyphenol antioxidant resveratrol (one of the hottest molecules in the anti-aging business) may have its most biologically protective effects mediated through mechanisms that have little or nothing to do with the reduction of oxidative stress. For example, resveratrol appears to activate surtuins, and about 20 other cellular pathways (including COX-2, iNOS, JNK, MEK, AP-1, p53, Bax, caspases, survivin, cyclins, Bcl-2, CIAP, Egr-1, PKC, PKD, casein kinase II, 5-LOX, VEGF, IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, just to name a partial list). (see Aggarwal 2006 in Biochemical Pharmacology for an excellent review). Turmeric appears even more complicated in its effects.

Indeed after reading some of the recent molecular work on antioxidant phytochemicals, one has to genuinely wonder if the term antioxidant really does them justice. It seems like they are more very complex cellular physiology modulators affecting transcription pathways, energy metabolism pathways, inflammatory pathways, apoptotic mechanisms, and a dizzying array of cellular signaling processes. However the term "cell physiology modulators" obviously is not going to catch on or replace the term "antioxidants". indeed this whole collection of other effects of classic polyphenols may explain why they appear to have far greater efficacy in relationship to the diseases of aging than classic antioxidant vitamins, which have been a complete bust in relationship to heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and cancer.

However, Wikipedia should more accurately reflect some of these considerations.

DFW April 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.129.233 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Jargon

Jargon can be dealt either by linking to an appropriate article, using a more common term or defining the technical word.

  • "phytonutrient" do not "contain" Polyphenol antioxidants. Foodstuff do. Blueberries are not phytonutrients, but flavones are.
  • comment addressed in text edit on 6/14/6 Anlace 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The regulation chemistry consists of a polyphenol antioxidant’s ability to scavenge free radicals and up-regulate certain metal chelation reactions.
    • this entire sentence is pure jargon, even with the link. Much more details need to be added for it to be comprehensible by the layman.
  • the sentence as written is precise, correct concise biochemical description, well wiki linked to relevant terms. i have added a following sentence in the text on 6/14/6 to assist in reading Anlace 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since reactive oxygen species are linked to mobilization of ion transport systems[...]
  • Reduction in inflammatory effects such as coronary artery disease including specific medical research into the pathways of improved endothelial health via downregulation of oxidative LDL.
    • the two elements liked by "including" have no apparent relation. THe resulting sentence is confusing at best
  • Reactive oxygen species are important markers for inflammatory diseases.
  • this is an ironic one. the term "marker" is the watered down version of the proper term biomarker. i had chosen the more approachable term already. the word marker is commonly used by physicians in their discussions with patients. in any case i have edited the article to provide the wiki link...a very good outcome you stimulated. Anlace 05:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For some of the ancillary benefits,
    • Also, a specific example of such a benefit would be nice
  • most people would think the word ancillary is a common English word, not jargon. in any case ive given a wiki linked example as requested...probably more words you dont like :) Anlace 05:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I replaced it with the much simpler "side-benefits", which is clear to any reader. "Secondary"is an acceptable, and certainly more universal synonym of "ancillary" Circeus 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wine, although nonessential, has a high polyphenol content
    • Nonessential in regard to what?? Regular diet? Research?
  • Nonessential is a common term used in medicine and food science (see for example the wikipedia article Essential amino acid Anlace 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Essential/nonessential" are normally applied to nutrients, not foodstuff, AFAIK. Saying that Wine is "nonessential" is confusing in this regard. Circeus 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The polyphenol content of wines is usually evaluated by the Folin reagent
  • reagent is a very common chemical term...i have provided a wikilink to it. Anlace 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Statistical least squares analysis has been conducted to demonstrate the Folin method correlates
    • This would need a proper wikilink ASAP, as it can obviously not be explained inline.
  • this comment is right on target. thank you. wiki links have been added in the article Anlace 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is debate regarding the total body absorption of dietary intake of polyphenolic compounds.
    • This sentence give the impression that the debate is about the amount absorbed, while the rest of the paragraph males it obvious that the issued relates to the effects. Maybe "Intake" is jargon-ish here.
  • there is evidence that some combinations of foods may inhibit full bloodstream uptake of certain polyphenol antioxidants
  • article edited to reflect comment and avoid use of biochemical term "uptake"Anlace 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • various exogenous sources of oxidative stress
  • good english word, this is. ive provided a wikilink to the article exogenousAnlace 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • responsible for the extrinsic type of skin aging
  • another good english word, not even specialized to biology. ive added the wikilinkAnlace 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Circeus 03:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper terminology

the above comments are thoughtful and im sure are meant in a very constructive way. it is unfortunate that the editor chose an emotionally charged, pejorative word "jargon" to initiate the discussion. in any case i am responding to each comment and assuming it is meant in good faith. this article is by its nature dealing with a complex biochemical subject and a balance must be struck here between good descriptive science and approachable text by the informed layman. i shall work with the above editor and any other commenters to achieve the best outcome for our readers. i do not think the answer is to water down the science and emasculate the essence of the discussion. i have responded to many of the above comments with substantive responsive article edits and will continue to work through the remainder as i have time. regards. Anlace 05:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Diluting the science has never been the answer on Wikipedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the times these can be dealt very easily (e.g. linking or using a synonym) or would probably gain in being expanded upon anyway. I do not request a dumbing down of any sort, which is actually the very last thing I wish for. I just think that the average reader should be able to comprehend the article as straightforwardly as possible.
Saying that a word like "up-regulate" is common in the field does nothing to help the unacquainted reader in understanding the topic being discussed and is likely to throw him out completely.
I have made a few vocabulary-related edits myself, but in the cases where expansion would be preferable, or where the term was out of my sphere of knowledge, I avoided making any more edits because I know I am not knowledgeable enough in the topic. Circeus 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I missing something

This article appears to be entirely about flavonoids, but is talking about them using the term "Polyphenol antioxidant" which seems to have arisen in the medical literature, and is not really based in the organic chemistry of the molecules. Shouldn't this article be merged into the flavonoid article or the antioxidant article? It should at least be made clear for the non-biochemists that the undescribed antioxiadants that this article is talking about are flavonoids, since the article never mentions that fact directly (twice in passing). --Peta 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to describe a specific class of antioxidants. The flavonoid cat I cannot tell whether is appropriate. However, The mention of the chemical class comes in at half the article and looks out of place. The lack of specific examples of Polyphenol antioxidants in the article makes it practically impossible to know whether they are all flavonoids, or only some. Circeus 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
perhaps these facts will help
  • there are many antioxidants that are not polyphenols, such as zinc and many other inorganic substances. thus merging this article with antioxidants is absurd.
  • not all polyphenols have been demonstrated to have antioxidant properties, so the name "polyphenol antioxidants" is a meaningful and useful distinction designating an important class of chemicals.
  • flavonoids have a specific structure which must include one or more phenylbenzopyrone rings. some, but not all, polyphenols have such a structure. thus polyphenols and flavonoids are two distinct classes of chemicals, which happen to have some of the same members. thus merging "polyphenol antioxidants" with "flavonoids" is chemically incorrect, besides being absurd. Anlace 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article fails to make all of those distinctions.--Peta 04:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class?

From the first sentence:

A polyphenol antioxidant is a member of a class of multi-phenolic compounds known for their free radical scavenging abilities.

What class is this? 81.76.99.188 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that sentence is not ideal, as the class is obviously that of polyphenol antioxidants themselves, which are a type of antioxidant. Circeus 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
sentence has been edited to read more clearly Anlace 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)