Talk:Selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Here is a list of issues, most of which are related to GA criteria. I can't see anything else at the moment that makes the article not meet them.

"is a type of experimental drug which shares many of the desirable anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties of classical glucocorticoid drugs but with fewer side effects such as skin atrophy" it's not proven until there have been clinical trials
- Clarification: I didn't mean remove, but phrase more carefully. Narayanese (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Hope it's clarified now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
transrepression/transactivation: the complex is a transcription factor in both cases
- Done, I think. Can you check whether this makes sense now? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haven't helped. The transrepression section of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17630119 was helpul though, you ought to use it instead of the German ref. Dimer vs monomer looks like an important point. Narayanese (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boghog2 has written a detailed account of that mechanism. I don't have access to the source you mentioned, so I don't want to exchange the reference without knowing what Schäcke actually says. Feel free to do it yourself if you object to the German source. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanism of action section: when saying it causes an effect, say which model (mouse? cell line?)
- Done for some of the physiological effects, and will try to source and re-add the rest later. (Note to self: catabolic and lipolytic action, atrophy of muscle and connective tissue.) Should I do the same with the molecular mechanisms (up-regulation of COX etc. etc.)? That will need some time, but of course I'll do it if you think it is necessary. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potential applications last paragraph: give reference
- Referenced statement that the antiproliferative properties of GCs are used in psoriasis. The second sentence, "SEGRAs would likely be less effective in such conditions", is hard to source. My main intention with this paragraph was to show that transactivation is not all bad (just as COX-2 is not all bad), and that SEGRAs are unlikely to render CGs obsolete. What do you think, can it be saved somehow? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in vitro: means different things in different disciplines, avoid the word
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"benzopyrano-quinoline A 276575 or in octahydrophenanthrene-2,7-diol" etc: I don't like the linking of particular groups, think you should unlink
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinking in general is in bad shape, with metabolic linked when about metabolic side-effects, infection instead of eye infection, connective tissue when discussig atrophy of it
- Changed infection → eye infection. I'm not sure what to do with the other two: there is no article Metabolic side-effect (should I link the first occurrence of side-effect in the article?), nor Connective tissue atrophy (atrophy is already linked above). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed the link from "metabolic side effects" since the word "metabolic" now occurs earlier in the text; linked that one. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's no big thing ofc. I just think such links (metabolic - which I'm guessing in this case would mean liver function; the eye infection one is fine now) are more often an annoyance than they help someone. Narayanese (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pictures: add sources to the image description pages or captions
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions: I recommend removing full stop at end
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Compounds were investigated in cellular[7] and animal models[8] of inflammation" a summary of the results would be in order
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZK 245186: move from lead to history
- Do you mean the sentence "As of March 2010..."? This is already in the second paragraph of the history section; I was trying to summarise the most important parts of the article in the lead as per WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll make the change and you can revert back. Narayanese (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see what you mean. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the cytosolic glucocorticoid receptor" jargonish shorthand for glucocorticoid receptor when in is in the cytosol, explain better for non-biologists
- No, it is the type of GCR that is solved in the cytosol, as opposed to the one on the membrane. See e. g. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/70. Rephrased. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and a number of other pro-inflammatory molecules" you just listed proteins, molecules sounds like the small ones.
- Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is testing concentrations of 0.01%" what type of percent? Don't you normally count in weight?
- Usually m/m is implied, but this is hard to source and doesn't make much difference anyway for an organic compound in an organic/water ointment. My point was to show that the therapeutic concentration will probably be between 0.01% and 0.1% as opposed to, say, 5%. I don't think it is important to know whether it is 0.008 or 0.012% (m/m). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As long as it's the same unit as you could expect on the final product it's all fine. Narayanese (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'd expect m/m, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. Shall I add (m/m) even though the source doesn't specify that? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Depends on how sure you are and how well-known it is in the field... leave it if you're sure completely sure. Narayanese (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll stay on the safe side and leave it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and will include about 64 patients" will sounds strange when it has started since long
- It is still recruiting, and the total number of patients will be about 64. Tried to rephrase, is it better now? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, it's better. Still takes a moment of thought, but nothing bad. Narayanese (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Narayanese (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stereochemistry[edit]

A concern from me: Do you think this source establishes R configuration of ZK 216348 (OH in front)? Fig. 1 looks much like it in my opinion, but the text only calls it the (+)-enantiomer which isn't helpful. The other structures of trifluoropropanolamines are here and here. Both look like R but aren't exactly clear. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like OH is at front, with the stereochemistry is drawn in perspective. Narayanese (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]