Talk:CYP2E1

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

inhibitors

In the table, diethyldithiocarbamate and disulfiram are listed as inhibitors. Disulfiram does not appear to be described as an inhibitor of CYP2E1 in the reference supplied, and, in the reference for diethyldithiocarbamate, yes, it is listed in a table as an inhibitor, but this isn't backed up by any further information or reference there.

Disulfiram is a disabler of the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, and, as such, has been used in "treatment" of alcoholism; diethyldithiocarbamate is a precursor of disulfiram.

I suspect that these two chemicals may have been listed in this article in error, because they are related to alcohol over-consumption, being inhibitors of a different important enzyme involved in alcohol metabolism.

Inhibitors of CYP2E1 (if any are known) would indeed be important, as it is the action of this induced enzyme that is responsible for some hepatic damage especially in heavy drinkers. 120.18.159.225 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

This paragraph seems to contradict itself:

This important enzyme has allowed for the North Americans of Europe to have demonstrably higher alcohol tolerance than their First Nations counterpart. The result of evolution has allowed for a decreased likelihood of developing alcoholism due to their increased exposure to alcohol. Evolution has allowed higher levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in their bodies. CYP2EI regulates how fast people get drunk. People with the gene (10-20% of the Canadian population) are likely to get drunk after only a few drinks – this low tolerance appears to protect them from becoming alcoholics.[3]

If I read this correctly, at first it claims alcoholism is less likely due to higher tolerance leading to greater exposure and hence fewer alcoholics. yet, the ending sentence claims the inability to tolerate alcohol leads to fewer alcoholics due to less exposure. In short, it seems to argue two completely contradictory points. Not to mention that it starts by saying the enzyme allows for greater tolerance, but then starts to refer to "this gene" (without specifying the gene) and reduced tolerance. I assume the gene mentioned is one that prevents the expression of the enzyme, but as it is written this is a supremely confusing and contradictory paragraph.

It is not related to this issue, but there is also a problem with the description "North Americans of Europe", which suggests individuals who migrated from North America to Europe and now reside there, while the reference to Canadians suggests the writer meant "North Americans of European descent" or something similar. I will correct this, though I don't know how to correct the bigger issue, as I have not read the cited article and cannot say whether alcoholism is prevented by increased or decreased tolerance, so can't say which of the two mutually exclusive argument which the paragraph puts forth is correct. 76.111.27.52 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]