Talk:Brincidofovir

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brincidofovir.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives (index)

1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brincidofovir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 22:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Disrupt cells" - an apparent conceptual error

When I read the following text in the article, I was suspicious:

Brincidofovir is a pro-drug that is composed of cidofovir, conjugated with a lipid molecule. The lipid aspect of the molecule takes on the action of endogenous lysopghosphatidyl choline, which then is able to enter and disrupt cells in the body which are infected with smallpox. Once the drug is taken into the infected cell, the drug cleaves to generate cidofovir. Cidofovir is then consequently phosphorylated to yield Cidofovir Diphosphate, which is the active drug.

How is a small molecule that inhibits DNA synthesis supposed to "disrupt" cells that are infected by a virus? Disrupting cells generally means killing them by breaking them into pieces.

I looked at the referenced source and found the following analogous text:

Brincidofovir is a pro-drug comprising cidofovir conjugated to a lipid molecule - the lipid component mimics an endogenous lipid, lysophosphatidylcholine, which allows the molecule to hijack endogenous lipid uptake pathways to enter infected cells. Following uptake, the lipid molecule is cleaved to generate cidofovir, which is then phosphorylated to generate the active antiviral compound, cidofovir disphosphate.

Nowhere is 'disruption' mentioned here - just that the drug, by mimicking an endogenous lipid, gains entry into cells. I intend to make the following change in 72 hours if no one objects:

'which then is able to enter and disrupt cells in the body which are infected with smallpox.' -> 'which then is able to enter cells in the body which are infected with smallpox.'

But I would encourage an able person to make other changes; the version of the paragraph that appears in Wikipedia does not seem to be written as well as the version that appears in the referenced source. In particular, the substitution of "aspect" for "component" and "takes on the action of" for "mimics" seems to make the meaning less clear.

Boatman4 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boatman4: As you say, there are word changes which alter the meaning. The cause of this is copyright. I wish the original sources were not copyright protected so that we could use the precise language of the experts, but for all the societal reasons, that text is locked down 95 years and random editors here have to reword it to make it available to the public.

I made a small change in another part of the text. I encourage you to WP:BE BOLD in making the changes you proposed. If you like, check in at WP:WikiProject Medicine sometime if you have other ideas to share. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change that I proposed earlier.

Boatman4 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]