Talk:NFE2L2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amanidkok. Peer reviewers: DevadattaGosavi, Asrar1993, Ghadisu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22020111. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 16:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Robofish (talk)

Potential adverse effects of NRF2 activation

The addition of the adverse reactions is inappropriate as it is largely taken out of context, based on preclinical studies of genetically modified animals, and does not incorporate any of the large body of literature showing anti-cancer and cardioprotective effects of pharmacological activation of Nrf2. Not sure, but this may be weasel wording Paracelsus2809 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree and you've provided no details to support that contention. The content is reliably sourced and accurately conveyed. You are content blanking and edit warring, so I'll advise you to stop doing so. You should also pay heed to WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, it's ludicrous to suggest that the adverse events section should address anti-cancer and cardioprotective effects of NRF2, since the latter two properties have nothing to do with adverse effects and are already addressed elsewhere in the article. That suggestion, as well as the unsubstantiated accusations about "weasel wording", "inappropriate", "out of context", "misleading", etc., are so wildly off base one has to wonder if you're even reading the content or just reflexively blanking it as soon as it appears because you don't like the title "adverse effects". This reeks of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI violation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A citation based on work performed in mouse cells and a couple of paragraphs from an online magazine published 3 years ago is not helpful. The athersclerosis article investigates what happens in Nrf2-knockout mice, but not when Nrf2 is activated. These are 2 completely different phenotypes. None of your citations are supportive of the clinical setting and very misleading. It is hard for the experts to appropriately edit an article when you keep threatening them with being banned. Bad form!Paracelsus2809 (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

New Scientist[1] is a WP:RS and is WP:SECONDARY in this context, which is ideal, and, arguably, a cut above any of the primary sources you've cited to date. It is also accompanied by the primary reference from Nature.[2] The New Scientist article is directly relevant to the clinical setting -- this is abundantly clear from even a cursory scan of the article. With regard to the role of NRF2 in atherosclerosis,[3] this too has been discussed by multiple WP:RS, and for good measure, I've just added another review article[4] on the topic which refers to multiple studies indicative of such a link.

Content blanking and drive-by tagging are bad form, as is violating WP:COI. If you have any constructive suggestions for improving the section, I advise you to post your editorial input on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. So far, you've suggested nothing -- you merely blanked content (a violation of policy) -- so there's no justification for the tag you added today. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I did not personally threaten to ban you. When you blanked the content a second time, it constituted WP:DE and WP:EDITWAR. Appropriate action was taken, which consisted of placing on your user page the relevant standard generic WP warning template. While it is true that you would likely be blocked for continuing along this path, it is not a case of me threatening you, not would it be me who would institute the block/ban; rather it would be an admin. The take-home point is that you should tread lightly going forward. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section

What was the basis for adding these particular articles to the Further Reading section[5] out of the thousands that have been published on the topic?[6] Seems that the selection was arbitrary and that the section isn't necessary or helpful. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Clinical drug target Section

Please review text and references and provide comments about the addition of these details.

Clinical studies evaluating RTA 408 are currently underway for the prevention of radiation-induced dermatitis, treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma, and prevention or treatment of ocular pain and inflammation following ocular surgery. Other studies with RTA 408 are planned to evaluate its effects in patients with Friedreich's ataxia and mitochondrial myopathies.Paracelsus2809 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at my edit summaries. That should answer your questions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but hence the wording changes to be more accurate. Some other studies, such as ocular and melanoma are underway. Some are underway but not recruiting, which means they are filled with the number of patients required for the study and not recruiting more patients. The ataxia and mitochondrial myopathy studies are planned and registered with clinicaltrials.gov but not currently enrolling. This means there is an open IND for these indications but recruitment of patients has not yet started. Please take a look at the references and let me know if you have any questions. Paracelsus2809 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article as it stands now lists the only trial that is verifiably "underway", and even that is arguably trivial. What really matters is data from completed trials that has been analyzed by reliable independent secondary sources. There's nothing notable about a study that exists on paper only and that has not even accrued patients. These Reata press releases speak to news events; they are not scientific details about NRF. Of great concern is the trend that's emerging for this article to turn into an advocacy piece for Reata. That's not going to happen, as it runs counter to the policies and core principles of WP. Again, I'll advise you to respect WP:COI going forward, acknowledge your COI and refrain from editing the article (much less edit warring). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)