Talk:Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Untitled
I removed the advertisement from the bottom of this page. Unless the author can cite references for what is said from "Performance Benifits" on it should be removed. Gravitate (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravitate (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the lot. All the other contribs by the same person were all similar spammings - MPF 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Discovered by
I added this sentence because Dr. Steve Nissen originally discovered and patented it as a nutritional supplement and I thought that merited inclusion. I attempted to make it unbiased and if there is any slant please feel free to change the wording of it. Just make sure to include that he introduced it based on research that he did (at Iowa State University). Here's some links to verify that he did introduce it [1] [2] Quadzilla99 11:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe he did not discover it as it was around in the 50s and 60s so perhaps the sentance should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.219 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Above links are now dead. I will remove reference to ‘discovery’. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Melting point
Melting point cant be -80C... seems erronous. 123.50.129.156 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is the value given at the link in the reference provided ... which in turn references the Beilstein database. Unless there is a contradictory value in another reference you can find, I don't think there is any reason to doubt it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-80 sounds too low but I've seen a couple sources that say its a liquid at room temp. which is possible considering the intramolecular hydrogen bonding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelirojopajaro (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
129 studies
I think this is misleading. The review has 129 REFERENCES, it doesn't go over 129 studies that dealt with HMB. I would say that less than 40 of them were actually original research on HMB. I don't want to go through and count them, but I think the 129 references is misleading. -Rjkd12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.46.214 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
SVG diagram of File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 1.jpg (Leucine metabolism in humans)
@Slashme: Hey, would you be interested in working with me to recreate File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 1.jpg as a wikitext-annotated SVG diagram for the en: and af: Wikis? I think you did a great job on the svg diagram for {{Tryptophan metabolism by human microbiota}}
, so I figured I'd ask if you were interested in creating an svg version of this diagram (without image text). The jpg image file is also used on the ja: Wiki; so, if you're willing to create the blank SVG diagram, I could probably find someone that can read/write Japanese to re-annotate the image text for that Wiki as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
My motivation for creating an annotated SVG version of this image is that I'm trying to get this article promoted to featured article status within the next 3–6 months. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sure! I'll do it this weekend at the very latest; maybe tomorrow. --Slashme (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
|
|
- @Slashme: I've asked for feedback on the annotated diagram at WT:MCB#Template:Leucine metabolism in humans; so, it might be best to wait until tomorrow for other editors to provide their suggestions for changes before working on the svg version. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK, will check there before starting. --Slashme (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Slashme: I've asked for feedback on the annotated diagram at WT:MCB#Template:Leucine metabolism in humans; so, it might be best to wait until tomorrow for other editors to provide their suggestions for changes before working on the svg version. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Slashme: I don't expect that the section on WT:MCB is going to garner further input; so, if you're still willing to create the svg image background, let me know once you've uploaded it and I'll update the annotated image. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Slashme: The consensus at WT:MCB is that the image should be recreated with the two pathways shown on the right merged into a single pathway so that these compounds aren't shown twice in the image. If you're still interested in recreating this image in svg format, let me know; otherwise, I intend to draw this myself when I have the time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft version of {{Leucine metabolism in humans}}
(under construction)
Annotated image and reflist
|
---|
References
|
Upcoming systematic review
"Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate free acid improves resistance training-induced muscle mass and function: a systematic review" - anticipated completion (publication?) date: September 2016
- Research question: What is the effect of HMB-FA on resistance training-induced muscle mass and function?
- Primary outcomes:
- Effects on skeletal muscle in sedentary, active and recreationally-trained subjects and HMB-supplemented compared with placebo.
- Change in lean mass from baseline to final intervention.
- Change in strength and biochemical parameters from baseline to final intervention.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Page name
The page name doesn't seem to be the most obvious choice to be. Thinking about WP:NAMINGCRITERIA I might suggest as alternatives (in rough order of preference):
- HMB, on the grounds of Conciseness and Recognizability. It might then require the existing HMB to be moved to HMB (disambiguation)
- beta-hydroxyisovaleric acid, on the grounds of Naturalness (MESH heading term)
- 3-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoic acid, on the grounds of Precision (IUPAC name)
Thoughts? If there is a decision for no change, then I think the last 2 terms should also be redirects here. Klbrain (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll respond to these in reverse order:
- 3-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoic acid is neither more nor less precise than the current article name, both names only specify one molecule.
- The main issue with beta-hydroxyisovaleric acid is that the common acronym, HMB, doesn't work for it. Additionally it seems that it isn't the preferred term in current literature.
- There are specific naming guidelines based off of the topic. WP:NCMED gives the naming guidelines for medical articles and states "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". Furthermore it states that drugs should be titled based off their International Nonproprietary Name, although I'm fairly certain HMB does not have an INN, and the line between drug and supplement is blurry. The chemistry naming guidelines at WP:NCCHEM generally recommend this quoted section from the general naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I think it might be best to look at other dietary supplements for guidance, and looking at other dietary supplement articles it appears using an acronym in place of the chemical name is not normally done, although perhaps a broader discussion should be had on the topic in a more general forum. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority of literature that has been published on this compound from the past 20 years has used the terms "β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate" [213 hits] or "β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid" [10 hits] (some sources also hyphenate "hydroxy-β"), depending on whether the study involved the conjugate base or acid. Prior to that, the 3- and β- "hydroxyisovalerate/hydroxyisovaleric acid" terms were more common. For comparison, the MESH name "beta-hydroxyisovaleric acid" gets only 8 results out of the 247 papers that are found from an unfiltered search using any of the MESH-indexed synonyms. The IUPAC name is seldom used in published literature.
- Most commercial products contain the calcium salt of this compound and refer to it as "calcium hydroxymethylbutyrate", "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate", or "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" (again, some also hyphenate "hydroxy-β"), so I imagine that most of the incoming traffic to this article uses one of those terms. I'm more inclined to use the conjugate base as the page name since it's more prevalent in published literature, but it seems more common to use the acid than the base as the page title when there aren't separate articles for the conjugate acid/base forms of a compound (in this case, the acid/base forms of HMB should be covered in the same article). Consequently, I think the current page name is acceptable even though it's not the most common name. I'm open to renaming the article though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment about safety
I'd like to start off by stating that I hope my commenting here does not turn away any potential GA reviewers since I believe these concerns can be addressed quickly, so much so that I'm tempted to go ahead and make them myself rather than post here, but I believe the prose will be more consistent if these changes are made by those who have written the majority of the article already.
In the opening there is a stand-alone sentence discussing HMB's safety in "young or old individuals", but to me that is a little unclear. The first source cited for that statement says "Chronic consumption of HMB is safe in both young and old populations", so I looked through it to see what they consider young. It appears they are referring to young adults as later in the paper they state that no research has been carried out on infants and very little research has been carried out on adolescents. Additionally no research appears to have been carried out on pregnant women.
With this in mind I would suggest further clarifying in the lead the lower bound of the age of individuals for which HMB supplementation appears safe. In addition the description of its safety in humans in the side effects section should be qualified so that it excludes human sub-populations that HMB hasn't been well studied in. Lastly the first sentence of that section implies that safety for animals in general has been established—"the safety profile of HMB in humans and animals"—this should be reworded/expanded to convey either which animals it has been found to be safe for, and/or to describe how animal models have been used to help establish the safety profile in humans. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M. A. Bruhn: I agree that this should be clarified.
- I think specifying "young adults and older adults" should adequately address the ambiguity in the current phrasing. I actually wasn't aware that any clinical testing with the compound had been conducted on individuals who are younger than 18.
- I imagine that based upon the current wording, one might infer that its safety status has been shown to be analogous to a US pregnancy category A drug; this isn't true, since as far as I know there hasn't been any RCT testing with HMB supplementation on pregnant women. While it's very likely true that the compound isn't teratogenic, we can't say this and it shouldn't be implied without an appropriate citation. I'll add a clause stating that no clinical testing has been conducted with supplemental HMB in pregnant women.
- I'd intended to add data on toxicity testing in animal models earlier but later decided to forego it since I figured most people would be interested in clinical information in humans. If you think it's worth adding, I'd be happy to include this.
IIRC, animal testing has involved daily doses of 15 g in rats for a duration of 1+ months w/o adverse effects, but I'll need to double check that.(edit: the doses given to rats were actually much higher based upon PMID 23374455 and PMID 25099672) I'll add the information about the animal, dose/dosage, and duration of testing to the article sometime today or tomorrow when I find the review that covers it. As for humans, clinical testing has involved 3 g daily doses for up to a year w/o adverse effects and 6 g daily doses for a couple of months w/o adverse effects in young adults. This would probably also be worth mentioning in the side effects section, so I'll include this as well when I add the information on animal testing.
On a related note, the only thing I could probably put into an OD section is the LD50 for rodent species; since LD50 in non-human animals seldom accurately reflects the LD50 for humans, I decided to forego the overdose section altogether.
- I'll start working on making these changes now. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improvement; I'd be happy to act on them. Also, feel free to edit the article yourself and make any changes that you know are supported by references. I don't bite. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to add the information on high-dose animal testing a little later since I need to log off for now. I think I've addressed most of the issues you've raised here, so let me know what you think when you get a chance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Those changes have mostly addressed everything for me. The only concern I have is with the ambiguity of "animals". From the context it can be reasonably inferred by the average reader to refer to animals commonly used in research to predict effects in humans, but not all readers might make inference. Although it's unlikely that someone's going to believe it's referring to coral reefs and bumble bees, the statement as it is presently worded is grammatically stating that HMB is safe for animals in general. I think it just needs to be slightly reworded so that instead stating "The safety profile of HMB in ... animals has been well-established...” it instead more explicitly conveys that the animals which HMB appears safe in are animals used to gauge safety for humans. Maybe something along the lines of "The safety profile of HMB in adult humans has been well-established by medical reviews looking at a combination of randomized controlled trials in humans as well as extensive animal testing." I haven't read the medical reviews so I don't know if this is a good characterization or not.
- I agree that data on animal models is probably irrelevant to add. I said that information on safety of specific animals could be added just on the off chance that there was information that was useful in it of itself, for instance if there had been any research on using HMB supplementation to bulk up livestock. But if that's not the case then there wouldn't seem to be a reason to make any specific mention of animal testing except in cases where it introduces something that human testing hasn't covered, such as with the pregnant pigs. I think making an OD section just for the LD50 might be giving it undue weight. I notice that the chem infoboxes have an LD50 parameter but the drug infoboxes do not, so perhaps that is an indication that LD50's for drugs shouldn't be presented in the infoboxes either. I'm neither for or against addition of such information, and think you should just do what you prefer.
- I'll let you know if I see anything else or feel free to do it myself. Thanks and good luck with your editing.M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I used your proposed wording, which was accurate, and indicated that most of the animal testing has involved lab rats, pigs, chickens, and turkeys. Edit: the review on HMB supplementation in animals (PMID 25099672) states that "
the utility of HMB supplementation in animals has been shown in numerous studies, which have demonstrated enhanced body weight gain and carcass yield in slaughter animals
", but I'm going to look for other sources that cover its use in livestock for this purpose before covering it in the article since I don't know how common/notable this practice is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC); edited at 14:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I used your proposed wording, which was accurate, and indicated that most of the animal testing has involved lab rats, pigs, chickens, and turkeys. Edit: the review on HMB supplementation in animals (PMID 25099672) states that "
- I'm going to add the information on high-dose animal testing a little later since I need to log off for now. I think I've addressed most of the issues you've raised here, so let me know what you think when you get a chance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@M. A. Bruhn: How would you feel about the addition of this statement to the paragraph on pregnancy?
As of 2016[update], Metabolic Technologies Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, advises pregnant and lactating women not to take HMB due to a lack of safety studies conducted with this population.[1]
I'm hesitant to add this, although I think it's notable since this is the company that grants licenses to allow the inclusion of HMB in dietary supplements. The reference is a primary source for the statement, but the statement itself is advisement as opposed to a medical claim. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Edit: I decided to add this material to a newly created "Contraindications" section, since IMO this content is most appropriate there. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I feel about this source's inclusion. Companies will produce statements instructing consumers not to use their products in certain ways simply because 1) they want to avoid liability and 2) they know their consumers will ignore them anyways (like with consumers using Q-tips to clean their ears). When you first posted I spent some time trying to find a more MEDRS compliant source to use instead, I found several RS sources, but no MEDRS though. If it is qualified as "Company X says Y" then it isn't really an issue of accuracy (since they do indeed state this) so much as weight. I'm not sure if it is undue weight or not. If this were a drug then it would be easy to find alternative sources, but since it is a supplement our options are limited. I suppose I am leaning more towards its inclusion, but would prefer it if a better source could replace it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- fwiw I think that Seppi is trying like crazy to cover all the sections in MEDMOS and cover the things we usually cover; for medicines we usually give the formal pregnancy category. A drug label will generally give the information as to whether the drug has been tested in pregnant women, or not and the label will give the negative information. In this case neither the label for Juven nor the label for the medical food Ensure discusses pregnancy. Neither of the current FDA draft guidances on medical food (not this and not this discuss pregnancy categories, and I am ~guessing~ that this is because medical food is well, food. Not something strange like a drug.
- Because of all that, Seppi, I think there is no need to talk about the pregnancy thing; not until this is marketed as a drug (which I am guessing it never will be)
- That said, I still think including the statement by the company, with attribution as suggested by M A Bruhn above, is a very good move. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah... I've been looking for medical sources that make a statement about HMB use during pregnancy or that cover a rather obvious drug interaction between HMB and rapamycin and/or mTOR inhibitors in general, but haven't really found suitable sources for either. In the case of the pregnancy statement in the article, I figure I can get away with that source since it doesn't really make any medical claims about HMB. It's basically just the company's advice, so I agree that it is more of a WP:DUE issue than a WP:RS/MEDRS issue.
- As for the HMB/rapamycin interaction, their opposing effects on MTORC1 activation and protein synthesis is mentioned only in this primary source, which I can't use to cite a drug interaction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I feel about this source's inclusion. Companies will produce statements instructing consumers not to use their products in certain ways simply because 1) they want to avoid liability and 2) they know their consumers will ignore them anyways (like with consumers using Q-tips to clean their ears). When you first posted I spent some time trying to find a more MEDRS compliant source to use instead, I found several RS sources, but no MEDRS though. If it is qualified as "Company X says Y" then it isn't really an issue of accuracy (since they do indeed state this) so much as weight. I'm not sure if it is undue weight or not. If this were a drug then it would be easy to find alternative sources, but since it is a supplement our options are limited. I suppose I am leaning more towards its inclusion, but would prefer it if a better source could replace it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Reflist
References
- ^ "Who should not take HMB?". Metabolic Technologies, Inc. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
Pregnant or lactating women are advised against taking HMB because safety studies have not yet been conducted for these populations.
New sources
@Jytdog: Thanks for doing a literature search and posting these sources here; I really appreciate it! I'll read through and use them to write new content when I get a chance later today or tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've been busier than I expected off-wiki over the past few days. I should have time to follow-up on this tomorrow night. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: My bad for not doing this yet; I'm going to stop trying to give myself further deadlines that I can't meet due to how busy I've been this past week. I will, however, use the sources that you linked below to add content before I look for sources to cite for adding a statement on the calcium content of HMB-Ca. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's OK - the fitzpatrick book is already used and there is not much else here that is useful. I was mostly recording my work actually trying to track down sales.. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Oh. Well, I'll still look through them anyway - might have something worth adding. Also, one of the refs that you linked to at FAC mentioned something you might be interested in (see the bold+underlined text below). As of when this ref was published, all of MTI's products contained HMB, as stated in the quote. As of now, they also sell or license one product which contains no HMB: an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) supplement which they call "betaATP". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, based upon the prices of currently available HMB-Ca and HMB-FA supplements and the relative efficacy in primary studies between HMB-FA and HMB-Ca, I really doubt MTI is making close to $10,000,000 annually on HMB-FA alone. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Oh. Well, I'll still look through them anyway - might have something worth adding. Also, one of the refs that you linked to at FAC mentioned something you might be interested in (see the bold+underlined text below). As of when this ref was published, all of MTI's products contained HMB, as stated in the quote. As of now, they also sell or license one product which contains no HMB: an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) supplement which they call "betaATP". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's OK - the fitzpatrick book is already used and there is not much else here that is useful. I was mostly recording my work actually trying to track down sales.. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: My bad for not doing this yet; I'm going to stop trying to give myself further deadlines that I can't meet due to how busy I've been this past week. I will, however, use the sources that you linked below to add content before I look for sources to cite for adding a statement on the calcium content of HMB-Ca. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Metabolic Technologies 2011 sales + 5-year sales projections
|
---|
|
sources for extent of use of HMB
am looking for sources for this, will record what I find here. others are free to add of course...
This is really hard as MTI is a private company so have no obligation (and don't) report sales.
- Shelly Meltzer, Cecily Fuller (2007). The Complete Book of Sports Nutrition: A Practical Guide to Eating for Sport. New Holland Publishers. p. 94. ISBN 9781845370817. -- says that 10,300 athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics were tested for doping, and of them, 2758 were surveyed about their use of supplements. 24 of them said they used HMB. (for comparison, 1996 used some kind of vitamin)
- Nuckols, Greg (July 20, 2016). "The HMB Controversy: Better than Steroids?". Strengtheory. (not a great ref, but guy who runs it seems to be not insignificant in world of lifers, see here). Has a blog entry focused on primary sources PMID 24599749 published in 2014 and the followup PMID 24714541 published this July and their remarkable results, and writes: "A supplement that’s been around for a long time, but which isn’t all that popular, works better than steroids?". "which isn't all that popular". Not much but something.
- Eichner, E. Randy; King, Douglas; Myhal, Mark; Prentice, Bill; Ziegenfuss, Tim N. (1999). "Roundtable: "Muscle Builder" Supplements" (PDF). RT#37. 10 (3). again really slim. From 1999. One of roundtable participants says: "HMB sales declined rapidly after it was introduced because it had no perceived effect on muscle mass and was expensive." Same person also said: "Likewise, HMB has not lived up to its marketing hype as an anabolic agent" Another, " Among athletes who want to gain muscle mass, protein and creatine supplements are popular, especially in football, wrestling, and track and field. HMB and the banned substances DHEA and the “andros” are used by few or none"
This is all I found in a google search 10 pages out. Will check my library... Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
sources on business background and marketing
- Fitzgerald M (2014). Diet Cults: The Surprising Fallacy at the Core of Nutrition Fads and a Guide to Healthy Eating for the Rest of US. Pegasus Books. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-60598-595-4. -- has a passage describing the origin of Metabolic Technologies. Also discusses the science a bit - says early research was hyped, and notes the 2009 review that found it had some benefit for people just starting a training regimen but not for people who have been at it longterm.
- Conis, Elena (29 May 2011). "Muscle drink with HMB targets the middle-aged". Los Angeles Times. -- "hook" was launch of Ensure Muscle Health; discusses that HMB is marketed to older/middle aged folks who want to start getting into shape, because that is who benefits the most (citing the 2009 review again)
- Kane, Ed (September 2014). "Nutritional Supplements in Horses" (PDF). Insider. Animal Health International, Inc. pp. 11–15. - a trade rag, notes that HMB is marketed for horses but there is "little to no data to support its use in horses".
Same search as above. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Mg of ionic calcium per gram of pure HMB from HMB-Ca
Need to find a WP:RS-quality source for this, since I think it's worth covering. Probably should be mentioned in the article since the {{mineral supplements}}
navbox links here and most HMB-Ca brands don't appear to list this information on the supplement bottles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Placement of biosynthesis section
Biosynthesis is currently a subsection pharmacology/pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics is what the body does to the drug, not how the body synthesizes it. Also some bugs and I assume many other "critters" synthesize HMB. Hence logically biosynthesis should not be a subsection of pharmacokinetics, but rather the chemistry (or possibly a new biochemistry) section. The reason I ask is that MC-CoA is used in the biosynthesis of a tetrasaccharide produced by Bacillus anthracis (anthrax bacteria) and HMB itself has been used in the laboratory synthesis of this tetrasaccharide (see PMID 15152001, 20614885). This new material would not be appropriate to add to the pharmacokinetics section but would be appropriate in a new biochemistry section. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm okay with moving it. I recognized that it wasn't really relevant to the PK section when I created it under that heading, but I put it there anyway simply because the HMB metabolism diagram also illustrates HMB biosynthesis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Expansion of chemistry section
With thanks to Sizeofint for supplying database searches, I have expanded the synthesis section. There are several more syntheses that could be added, but most of these are obscure reactions or reactions where HMB is a side product. Hence I question the notability of these. Also there were some early syntheses reported (and associated physical data of the synthesized HMB) based on an aldol condensation without dehydration between acetone and ethyl acetate. However I think this would be highly unlikely since the dehydration is the driving force for the reaction. As far as physical data, there is not much more that could (or should) be added. By far, the most notable aspect of HMB is that is a naturally produced metabolite and a food additive . Much less has been published about its chemistry. Hence per WP:DUE, it is appropriate that the chemistry section of this article is significantly shorter than some of the other sections. Boghog (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Boghog: you should probably post this in Nergaal's review section to discuss with him what should or could be added about to HMB's chemistry. He's the only reviewer who has commented on the chemistry section thus far. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
History → Synthesis section split
@Boghog: I split part of the material that you added to the history section to the synthesis section and re-added a slightly duplicate statement about its very first reported synthesis to the history section in this edit. Is that okay with you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I was thinking of doing something similar. Thanks for taking care of that. Boghog (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Reviews and CC-BY-2.0/CC-BY-4.0 diagrams
Diagrams and reviews
|
---|
Most of these articles are currently available here. The file names reflect the ref names defined in the source code below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
References
|
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting those sources! I cannot believe how crappy that 2013 review is. Disturbing. Am going to open a discussion at WT:MED about it. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I've only read (mostly) through half of these, but it appears that the reviews that describe HMB's effects in general (i.e., not solely in the context of a pharmacotherapy for sarcopenia/muscle wasting) - [1][2] - draw the same or even stronger conclusions about its effects in humans compared to the ISSN review. I'll probably end up relying on the newer reviews for supporting statements about clinical effects, so using this source to independently support such statements won't be an issue.
- Also, I'm considering taking this article to FA status since its primary clinical/therapeutic effect is unique and improving the article won't be too much work compared to other drug articles that I've worked on; there's only a handful of reviews and a few database refs from which to collate information on the compound, so finding all the relevant information to satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion won't be difficult (researching/revising amphetamine for FA took over a year; this would probably take ~1 month). With that in mind, if you have any feedback on the other sources or any other suggestions, I'd be interested to hear it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Hey, sorry to bother you again with this request, but would you be willing to send me these 5 reviews?[3][4][5][6][7] They're paywalled and I don't have access. I'd really appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I sent them all except PMID 23919746 which my library doesn't get. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I appreciate it. Hopefully I can get that last one from WP:RX. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
- Review of HMB's effects on skeletal muscle, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics from January 2016[8]
- Systematic review on supplements for cachexia from 2016[9]
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2016 review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
PEDs in sports 2015 review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
HMB for cancer cachexia 2013 review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Effects of amino acid derivatives 2015 review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Nutrition supplements for athletes 2014 review
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Duan Y, Li F, Li Y, Tang Y, Kong X, Feng Z, Anthony TG, Watford M, Hou Y, Wu G, Yin Y (January 2016). "The role of leucine and its metabolites in protein and energy metabolism". Amino Acids. 48 (1): 41–51. doi:10.1007/s00726-015-2067-1. PMID 26255285. S2CID 254080284.
- ^ Mochamat, Cuhls H, Marinova M, Kaasa S, Stieber C, Conrad R, Radbruch L, Mücke M (July 2016). "A systematic review on the role of vitamins, minerals, proteins, and other supplements for the treatment of cachexia in cancer: a European Palliative Care Research Centre cachexia project". Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. 8 (1): 25–39. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12127. PMC 5326814. PMID 27897391.
Recent preclinical research
- Covers HMB's effects on protein synthesis in brain cells, neurite outgrowth, and age-related dendritic remodeling in the brain of various nonhuman animals:
- Evidence that HMB is a (non-protein small molecule) neurotrophic factor in the brain of nonhuman animals (mice - in vitro/rats - in vivo)[1][2]
- Increases protein synthesis in the mouse brain (in vitro) and pig brain (in vivo)[1][3]
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Salto R, Vílchez JD, Girón MD, Cabrera E, Campos N, Manzano M, Rueda R, López-Pedrosa JM (August 2015). "β-Hydroxy-β-Methylbutyrate (HMB) Promotes Neurite Outgrowth in Neuro2a Cells". PLOS ONE. 10 (8): e0135614. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1035614S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135614. PMC 4534402. PMID 26267903.
In conclusion, we have shown for the first time that HMB promoted neurite outgrowth through PI3K/Akt and ERK1/2 signaling pathways in Neuro2a cells. Its effect in neuron differentiation is concomitant with higher levels of glucose transporters, the activation of mTOR by mTORC2 and consequently an increase in protein synthesis. Moreover, HMB is involved in promoting MEF2 activity and expression of members of this family of transcriptional factors. We believe that HMB may have great potential as [a neurotrophic] factor promoting neuron differentiation and plasticity. Our results indicated a novel effect of HMB on neurite outgrowth and call to further studies to reveal its positive influences on cognitive outcomes.
- ^ Kao M, Columbus DA, Suryawan A, Steinhoff-Wagner J, Hernandez-Garcia A, Nguyen HV, Fiorotto ML, Davis TA (May 2016). "Enteral β-Hydroxy-β-Methylbutyrate Supplementation Increases Protein Synthesis in Skeletal Muscle of Neonatal Pigs". Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 310 (11): E1072–84. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00520.2015. PMC 4935142. PMID 27143558.
The fractional rates of protein synthesis in the brain were greater in the piglets supplemented with HMB 40 and 80 or fed the HP diet compared to feeding the LP diet alone or the fasting condition (P < 0.05, Fig. 5, G).
mTOR signaling cascades
Leaving this here for personal reference.
- Has a detailed mTOR signaling cascade diagram[1]
- Discusses and includes a diagram of signaling cascades involved in MPS/MPB[2] hosted here temporarily
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Updated 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lipton JO, Sahin M (October 2014). "The neurology of mTOR". Neuron. 84 (2): 275–291. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.09.034. PMC 4223653. PMID 25374355.
Figure 2: The mTOR Signaling Pathway - ^ Anthony TG (July 2016). "Mechanisms of protein balance in skeletal muscle". Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 56 Suppl (Suppl): S23 – S32. doi:10.1016/j.domaniend.2016.02.012. PMC 4926040. PMID 27345321.
Metabolic pathway links
- HMB-CoA HMDB entry
- HMB-CoA KEGG entry
- alpha-Ketoisocaproate + O2 ⇒ 3-Hydroxy-3-methylbutyrate + CO2 – EC 1.13.11.27; 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase = KIC dioxygenase per [1][2]
Should be able to write a comprehensive biosynthesis/metabolism section using these 5 refs:
- [1] (covers α-KIC → HMB reaction)
- [2] (covers most of the metabolic pathway; has another diagram)
- [3] (covers HMB-CoA → HMB)
- [4] (covers most of the metabolic pathway; includes the same metabolic pathway graphic as the ISSN review)
- ISSN review - PMID 23374455 (review with the article's current metabolic pathway graphic)
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "Homo sapiens: 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase reaction". MetaCyc. SRI International. 20 August 2012. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
- ^ a b Kohlmeier M (2015). "Leucine". Nutrient Metabolism: Structures, Functions, and Genes (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 385–388. ISBN 9780123877840.
Figure 8.57: Metabolism of L-leucine
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help)|quote=
- ^ Mock DM, Stratton SL, Horvath TD, Bogusiewicz A, Matthews NI, Henrich CL, Dawson AM, Spencer HJ, Owen SN, Boysen G, Moran JH (November 2011). "Urinary excretion of 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid and 3-hydroxyisovaleryl carnitine increases in response to a leucine challenge in marginally biotin-deficient humans". J. Nutr. 141 (11): 1925–1930. doi:10.3945/jn.111.146126. PMC 3192457. PMID 21918059.
Reduced activity of MCC impairs catalysis of an essential step in the mitochondrial catabolism of the BCAA leucine. Metabolic impairment diverts methylcrotonyl CoA to 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA in a reaction catalyzed by enoyl-CoA hydratase (22, 23). 3-Hydroxyisovaleryl CoA accumulation can inhibit cellular respiration either directly or via effects on the ratios of acyl CoA:free CoA if further metabolism and detoxification of 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA does not occur (22). The transfer to carnitine by 4 carnitine acyl-CoA transferases distributed in subcellular compartments likely serves as an important reservoir for acyl moieties (39–41). 3-Hydroxyisovaleryl CoA is likely detoxified by carnitine acetyltransferase producing 3HIA-carnitine, which is transported across the inner mitochondrial membrane (and hence effectively out of the mitochondria) via carnitine-acylcarnitine translocase (39). 3HIA-carnitine is thought to be either directly deacylated by a hydrolase to 3HIA or to undergo a second CoA exchange to again form 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA followed by release of 3HIA and free CoA by a thioesterase.
FAC-related references
For Nergaal's review
|
---|
References
|
For Jytdog's review
|
---|
|
For Nergaal+Axl's reviews (History section content)
|
---|
References
|