Talk:Pyrroloquinoline quinone

Edits

Nunh-huh, did you not read their FAQ, or do you have new information?

"At the molecular level, PQQ is involved in the lysine degradation. We have found a gene for PQQ-dependent enzyme from human as well as from mouse. So, PQQ is also essential to humans."

Yggdræsil 07:14, 27 April 2004‎ ‎

I edited the page by removing the "not a vitamin" sentence as it has positively been identified as a vitamin from what I've read. 24.83.178.11 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

PQQ Not A Vitamin Maybe?

If PQQ is SUSPECTED to not be a vitamin, then the article should reflect it. i.e. the research saying it is a vitamin and the counter research should both be mentioned since nothing has been proven definitely.24.83.148.131 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)BeeCier

Which foods contain it ?

Since it may be a vitamin it would be useful for article to list some food sources for it ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, foods contain it in very negligible quantities when compared to 10-20 mg supplements. The research and the effects are in no way comparable. --IO Device (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it is sold as a dietary supplement, what is known about its digestion, absorption and consumption/excretion ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rod57: One source might be section 3 of [1] and its references. I am not personally inclined to get into this article, however. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyclical Arguing

This article contains back and forth arguing. Revision needed. Gary Dell'Abate (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use medical reviews

I don't feel like going through the entire neuroprotection section to mark animal studies as such for the sake of saving it. WP:MEDRS requires that medical statements be sourced by current medical reviews, so I'm simply deleting it - [2] this links to the current pubmed reviews on human-relevant research with this substance (these 4: PMID 24668725 PMID 24350630 PMID 22581337 PMID 22387133). If anyone wants to rewrite the section, use those reviews, not primary sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand, adding "AND "last 5 years"[PDat] AND Humans[Mesh]" to the query places unnecessary constraints, and I view this as a malicious attempt to undermine the article. At least 38 results are returned for "(PQQ[Title] OR Pyrroloquinoline-quinone[Title]) AND review[pt]". Even more are returned if I remove my [Title] constraint. --IO Device (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The 5 years is WP:MEDDATE; the human filter is WP:MEDANIMAL; the review filter is WP:MEDREV. Those 3 filters are standard pubmed filters for medrs compliance; although in cases where reviews aren't published frequently, meddate is typically ignored in those circumstances. Feel free to remove the title filter though; I didn't realize it was excluding relevant papers. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, if you head over to WP:MEDRS#Searching for sources, the 1st sentence of the second paragraph reads:

PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years.

That link contains those 3 filters. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

‣ WP:MEDDATE is nonsense and I will spend no time debating or entertaining it here. Are the reviews from 2009 suddenly invalid because they're past the 5 year mark? Ridiculous. For compliance, who takes the responsibility for updating articles everyday with reviews only from the last five years? This is such stupidity that only the asshats who wrote MEDRS can come up with it. And of course I will use a newer review when available and possible, but if it's not available for the concern of interest, there is no option for me but to fall back on older reviews. A more sensible guideline would be to simply try and use newer reviews when possible. There are times when a new review is published annually, and even 5 years may then be too old.

‣ WP:ANIMAL as a hard criteria is also nonsense because text from animal study reviews can be noted as applying to animals. There is no implicit link to humans if this clarification is made in the article's text. Surely you're not alleging that animal-science is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

‣ WP:MEDREV is the only criteria that is halfway reasonable.

‣ "[Title]" was added by me to quickly eliminate several less-relevant items.

--IO Device (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ya know, about every other time I revise an article to follow medrs, I get someone who wants to debate with me on the article talk page like this. The point of MEDRS is to ensure that there is a minimal amount of non-replication error, systematic bias, fringe theory, or outdated information in our articles. Misinformation on wikipedia jeapordizes the reliability of Wikipedia, and that should be a paramount concern to every editor.
W.r.t. the particular policies I linked, you're reading too much into the policy - MEDRS is not a checklist, it is a guideline, meaning there is always flexibility in its application for specific circumstances. If I were to apply it rigidly, most of this article wouldn't exist since most sources fail at least 1 of the component guidelines. Technically, I should have deleted the animal studies instead of indicating particular species in the text. Most medical editors that communicate on WT:MED simply delete all the animal research they find in an article which cites a medical claim. I generally prefer not to steamroll the work that others put into an article if it can be avoided though; hence my decision to point out animal studies and prune the text that suggested direct applicability to humans.

My personal views about animal research

That said, I am very skeptical when it comes to using animal studies to draw conclusions about humans, with limited exception, due to how many interspecies differences associated with the toxicity, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of individual chemicals that I know about. Amphetamine is a perfect example: literally all toxicity and pharmacokinetic animal research is completely useless due to the high variability between pharmacokinetic parameters, metabolizing enzymes, drug metabolites (and the neurotoxicity of drug metabolites), neuronal antioxidant systems, and neuroimmune response to very high amphetamine doses between species. The pharmacodynamic animal research has applicability provided there's close similarity between the target protein and associated cell type between humans and the animal species being studied. Even with the best design though, evidence from animal research is never conclusive about humans - that's what randomized controlled trials in humans are used to establish.

Anyway, if you want to keep the current Pyrroloquinoline quinone#Neuroprotection section, just note the species in the text which is cited by an animal study, and we'll leave it at that. If you want to improve the article and are willing to do some reading/editing, use the most recent medical reviews to cover the relevant text on PQQ neuroprotection. If you choose to go that route, the article content will be more current and the cited content will have been vetted by the reviewing authors (less potential for bias/error). You'll probably also find that the conclusions it draws about a research topic will be more definitive than the conclusions of the sources it cites, since medical reviews tend to synthesize evidence instead of simply "report" evidence as if it were a news story. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of removing all the primary research. We're meant to be writing at the tertiary level, but by building on primary sources we're assuming the role of a secondary and thus (through the selection of the primary sources and the validation of them through inclusion) indulging in WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in favor to: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Wrong_rules_about_primary_vs._secondary_sources --81.6.59.42 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Seppi333 are right. Older review articles are OK if nothing much has changed since, but that's not even the issue here. This article is built mostly from primary sources, so there's no knowing which of the findings presented here are significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Explain

"It is found in soil and foods such as kiwifruit, as well as human breast milk."

What are "foods such as kiwifruit"?

Drsruli (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

PQQ Role in Dopamine Synthesis

The sentence "An article by Bruce Ames in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2018 identified pyrroloquinoline quinone as a "longevity vitamin" not essential for immediate survival, but necessary for long-term health." Should be deleted, and is outright false.

PQQ is a cofactor in dopamine synthesis and subsequent degradation to norepinephrine. Source: BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS: AN ATLAS OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, John Wiley and Sons, 2012, and subsequent versions.

No dopamine or norepinephrine is incompatible with life.

Dr. Robert Zee Engineer / Chiropractor / Biochemist / Genetic Analyst 98.62.198.136 (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Vitamin story

The Vitamin story is currently a bit... incomplete. The introduction section of PMID 27230956 (already cited) mentions PQQ deprivation experiments, which could provide context to the notion of PQQ as a vitamin. It also mentions that the K&K 2003 vitamin notion was broken due to a wrongly assumed cofactor role for ACSF4-U26. Now that we know it really is a cofactor of something, this context might be quite relevant. PMID 30322941 (also already cited) cites PMID 19803551 for context on the debate. Artoria2e5 🌉 12:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)