Talk:Protein toxicity
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): N.Bahman, Jpena7, Lam.N Pharm D 2023, Nicolestruong. Peer reviewers: Dlee234, Dkennebrew UCSF23, Dbhaskar13, Dpurohit, Class of 2023.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmackey18, M.Ocampo, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Ekocharyan, Alansfeld.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Protein Farts
[edit]It's been mentioned among those who exercise, that a higher intake of protein could lead to 'protein farts'; basically formation of gasses in the intestines due to a too high intake in proteins. Even though the muscles may still be sore, and the body may be 'asking' to be healed by the use of protein, the body is not able to process an overdose on proteins. Combining protein with sugars could make 'protein farts' even more intense.
It's an estimate (but I have not researched), that the micro biology in the intestines, are not able to break down the excess of proteins. adding sugar (to sweet sugary protein drinks), could actually give these healthy bacteria more work; and less able to process the byproducts.
When 'protein farting' occurs, it is recommended to either decrease the protein intake, spread out the protein intake (take just as much but instead of drinking it once or twice a day, spread it out over many smaller intakes a day), or worst case, take probiotic yoghurt, to add to the intestine fauna and flora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.33.155 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Plan
[edit]Definition/Summary Protein toxicity is the effect of the buildup of protein metabolic waste compounds, like urea, ammonia, and creatinine. Protein toxicity has many causes, including insufficient kidney function, urea cycle disorders, and excessive protein intake.[1] Accumulation of these metabolic wastes can lead to serious complications such as seizures, encephalopathy, further kidney damage - including both acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, and death. [2] [3] [4] Nicolestruong (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Protein toxicity can occur from genetic mutations. [5]
Causes
Pathophysiology. Excess consumption of protein in adults can lead to bone disorders, decrease on renal function, liver damage, accelerate progression on coronary artery disease, and even cancer. [6] Jpena7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Diagnosis
Treatment
Complications
Epidemiology
Special populations Nicolestruong (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ah Mew N, Simpson KL, Gropman AL, et al. Urea Cycle Disorders Overview. 2003 [Updated 2017]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2021.
- ^ Ah Mew N, Simpson KL, Gropman AL, et al. Urea Cycle Disorders Overview. 2003 [Updated 2017]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2021.
- ^ Singbartl, K., & Kellum, J. A. (2012). AKI in the ICU: definition, epidemiology, risk stratification, and outcomes. Kidney international, 81(9), 819–825. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.339
- ^ Baum, N., Dichoso, C. C., & Carlton, C. E. (1975). Blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine. Physiology and interpretations. Urology, 5(5), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(75)90105-3
- ^ Chung, C.G., Lee, H. & Lee, S.B. Mechanisms of protein toxicity in neurodegenerative diseases. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 75, 3159–3180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2854-4
- ^ Delimaris I. Adverse Effects Associated with Protein Intake above the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Adults. ISRN Nutr. 2013;2013:126929. Published 2013 Jul 18. doi:10.5402/2013/126929
Peer Review Foundations II 2021
[edit]The protein toxicity group has reviewed all the references and that they are now correctly formatted. One citation (citation #8) was identified as a non-academic source, the citation was removed from the article and replaced with a secondary academic source (citation #10). N.Bahman (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Nicolestruong (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC) --Jpena7 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Lam.N Pharm D 2023 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
1. Does the draft reflect a neutral viewpoint? (Domanique)
The group does make substantial contributions to this article, according to the guiding framework. The group was able to expand the article in such a way that there was insight on the subject matter of protein toxicity. They set out to include multiple subsections that were not previously available on the subject and they were able to form a neutral viewpoint about protein toxicity. There were no biases that was displayed; however, when discussing the study about the Nursing health, a change of words would have been more neutral when referring to the patients that were in the study. A simple change of words from patients to participants would have given that particular section a more neutral tone. An introduction of the pathophysiology in relation to the cause of protein toxicity was something that I wish I could have used in our article. The overall tone was neutral. Dkennebrew UCSF23 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (Divya)
I thought that the group’s edits did substantially improve the article based on Wikipedia’s peer review Guiding framework. Firstly, the group did an excellent job expanding upon the article information, and adding new sections. For instance, they added a Special Populations section, regarding Neonates and people with Neurogenerative Diseases. One other thing I noticed was even though the group added a substantial amount of information, I thought that the article flowed very well. I also think they did a great job researching the treatment options. For instance, they even researched the potentiality of a kidney transplant. The only point I felt the group could have changed was reducing the epidemiology section. While I thought they found solid information, I felt that it wasn’t necessary for the article regarding protein toxicity, and could be made more concise. Yes, the group achieved its goals for improvement—the plan seemed more like an outline, but they added additional sections. Overall, I thought that the group did a great job.
I checked the citations. I thought that the citations looked good. They added a wide variety of credible sources. I only noticed one minor issue, it looks like a couple of the sources are primary including citation #10 (Rangoo etc.) and citation #13 (Wempe etc.), so I think it would be good to verify this information with secondary sources, if possible.
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? (Dylan)
- Yes, the group's contributions immensely improved this article, according to Wikipedia's "Guiding Framework." They expanded on the topic of protein toxicity, and provided clinical evidence and data with secondary sources to back-up their claims. I believe the group was able to achieve their goals as well. --Dlee234 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, majority of the edits are consistently formatted with Wikipedia's manual of style. There are proper headers and sub-headers for different topics in the same category. However, there are some disease states and medical jargon that could've had a link to another Wikipedia article explaining what it is. For example, in the "Effects of a High Protein Diet" section, there was mention of "atherosclerosis, anemia, hyperparathyroidism" that isn't easily understandable to a normal reader. I think if the the person who edited that section included a hyperlink that referenced another Wikipedia article about it, it would be easier for the reader to understand. Additionally, there are some parts of the article that's missing or lacking proper citations. Though many sentences provide very great information that pertain to the article, it left me wondering what those sources are? I noticed that there would be one citation at the end for each article but it might be better to cite each "claim" that is made after each sentence, even if the entire paragraph came from the same source. Overall, the edits follow a very clear organization of information and flows pretty well and is easy to read. --Dlee234 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (Dvijen)
I do believe that this group’s edits have substantially improved the quality of this article as described in the framework of this assignment. This article has a been rated “Start-Class” along with being rated as “Low-Importance” so the information present on this subject was not very robust initially. This groups’ plan was to expand on this article subject’s sections regarding diagnosis, pathophysiology, treatment and complications of protein toxicity along improving the sections regarding epidemiology and special populations. After reviewing the recent edit history, I can see that each group member has contributed in each domain that their group as a whole initially intended to expand upon and have even added whole new sections. (Including one new section with 5000+ bits, shout out to Nicole). The edits were structured well, provided proper sourcing material, and were neutral in their points of view. I do believe this group has reached is overall goals for improvement given the timeframe and requirements of the assignment.
The article uses the terms ‘patients’ a few times and I think it may be more prudent to change the phrasing to either ‘participants’ when referring to studies, or to just people when referring to them otherwise. Other than that I do believe that the edits made by this group reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. Assessing this article in this manner required me to read the content and see if there were any infractions regarding the usage of proper language and I was not able to find any besides the usage of the word ‘patient.’Dpurohit, Class of 2023 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)