Talk:Oxidative stress

Body's Natural Defences

The article has talked about NADPH but it says nothing about the main way in which NADPH is produced (i.e. the Pentose Phosphate Pathway). I believe there are another two pathways that are also used by the body to enhance the its reducing capabilities. Maybe this should be another section in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.89.179 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Hi Tim,

Nice work! It's not my area, but I was caught a little off-guard by the lead statement

The cellular redox environment is preserved by enzymes...

I guess I would lay more emphasis on the glutathione concentration

The cellular reducing environment results from a high concentration of glutathione (5 mM), which is preserved by enzymes...

and maybe talk about things that affect that concentration, such as fasting (if I recall correctly)? Oh, and wasn't there a nifty crosslinked version, trypanothione? But I hear that it's found only in a few inconsequential organisms. ;D

I also kind of missed thioredoxin and glutaredoxin; should they be mentioned here?

Some discussion of the SS bond formation in the ER might be nice, too. Good luck and talk to you soon, Willow 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow

I'm hoping to expand the Antioxidant page to deal with the biological antioxidants in a more rigorous way, so the various whateveredoxins can go there, along with a discussion of glutathione, ascorbate etc. It is correct to say that enzymes maintain the intracellular redox state, since they link the GSH/GSSG redox couple with the NADPH/NADP redox couple and maintain the glutathione in its reduced thiol form. Synthesis of new GSH might contribute a little to this process, but the majority is glutathione reductase recycling the glutathione disulphide that's produced as GSH reacts with by oxidants. Maybe I need to make this more clear. TimVickers 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that the enzymes weren't ultimately responsible for maintaining the redox state. I was only worried that some people might imagine that the enzymes themselves were running around the cell reducing everything, instead of acting indirectly through the glutathione couple. I'll be interested in the antioxidant page; I'm sure that a lot of people will be interested in it. Good luck Willow 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally embarrassed that I mentioned trypanothione to you, when you did your thesis on it! I knew that you had worked on T. cruzi (hence the "inconsequential" joke above) but I hadn't stopped to study the titles of your journal articles — oops! Depending on your kind indulgence for my dimness and preemptive congratulations on becoming an admin, Willow 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In relation to Alzheimer's Disease and the Tocopherol article

Opinions of the effect of Vitamin E on the prevention of Alzheimer's Disease differ in this and the Tocopherol article. -- Squater 27 June 2007

I've rewritten that part of the tocopherol article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about oxidative stress on the subject of weight loss and fitness program

An informative internet article hinted to readers to

"Consider taking a CLA (Conjugated linoleic acid), 1000mg 3 times a day with meals. In studies CLA was shown to reduce body fat, in particular in the belly area. If you have diabetes or are at risk for diabetes, check with your doctor first."

When I read about CLA on wikipedia, it explained that this would induce oxidative stress within the human body. My question is will this do damage to the body as a whole in anyway; reducing our lifespam any?

From my readings of the wikipedia information available to me; the conclusion I came to was that it may or may not result in the human lifespan becoming a bit shorter.

I wanted to confirm its safety become considering it as a dietary supplement.

Michael Nguyen mknguyen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.253.209 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

CLA research is sometimes confusing since there are many isomers that are in differing composition profiles depending on CLA manufacturer. When reading CLA research pay attention to the isomer composition details (which is good practice for all supplement research that references a complex of related isomers, and not a single compound). JosephCampisi (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Your note is well taken concerning citations. My recent edit is common knowledge concerning the nature of scientific inquiry. If I added specific details, or new ideas derived from research I would indeed provide a reference citation. My intention was to give pause and curiosity to the reader to further delve into antioxidant research critically, and not merely be persuaded by limited pro or con presentations found all too often in current media concerning oxidative stress. JosephCampisi (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You need a source discussing your point, since this probably will not be "common knowledge" amongst our readers - we're not writing for professionals after all. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (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. 16:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Robofish (talk)

Agreed

Any mention of protandim is certainly a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI due to its distribution as a MLM product. That that product is mentioned in (otherwise) well respected journals is plainly not sufficient to overcome WP:COI, WP:SPAM. Furthermore, mentioning a proprietary formulation evades the only interesting ingredient (tumeric/curcumin) which is just one of perhaps dozens inducers of antioxidant enzyme response believed to be related to the Keap1/NRF2/ARE response mechanism. Recent studies on this pathway are pouring out of journals, and soy isoflavones, quercetins,and dozens of other phytochemicals are demonstrating efficacy as Keap1/NRF2/ARE modulators. That's why I'm requesting a section on Keap1/NRF2/ARE which briefly describes the phenomenon before linking directly to a separate article which is already published at least twice:[[1]] and [[2]] RGK (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimer

Will the person who keeps titling a section on Alzheimer stop doing that? The evidence presented shows only indirect association with Alzheimer, not direct association, far less any causation. There are plenty of research like that on many diseases, and they don't warrant a section on their own. If that is your research (the IP address of the person making the edits and the paper both point to India), please note that wiki doesn't allow self-promotion per WP:NOTPROMOTION, it is for other people to assess the significance of your research, not for you to publicize it. Hzh (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the person kept insisting on putting this minor research results into this page. If you are one of the authors of the paper by Mandal, Tripathi and Sugunan, then I think you should know that your scientific reputation is more likely to be damaged than enhanced when people realized that you are behind this. Hzh (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Input

Persons with knowledge of the area are requested to provide input over at Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Upregulation of Antioxidant Enzyme Response

I am not presently posting directly to articles, but this is my primary area of interest, so I'd like to lobby for a new section on KEAP1/NRF2/ARE which would likely reference the related wikipedia article. RGK (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcomed to start a section on this topic. For citations review articles are generally preferred. If you have never edited a page and are unsure how to do it, we can help or fix it afterwards, or you can try it out first in your own user sandbox. The content of what you have written may then be edited or rewritten by others if they feel it necessary, but that's all part of the collaborative process of writing a wiki article. Hzh (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs to exhibit less complexity in regard to its linguistic expression

Like so many articles on wikipedia these days, this article is not very useful for the average public reader, because it does not use PLAIN ENLGISH. Wikipedia should not be a place to impress fellow academics (or even just oneself), but to communicate knowledge CLEARLY. I came here to find out about how safe it would be to apply hydrogen peroxide to dental pockets given the study below, but the information is NOT CLEAR. http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/89/11/1241.short I am left no more informed than when I started. Wikipedia is going to lose relevance if it does not express things clearly. It is quite obvious from televison programs like Catalyst, from popular science magazines, and from great scientist-communicators of the past, that it IS quite possible to express even complex subjects in PLAIN ENGLISH. Please do so or don't bother.

No idea why you want to complain about not understanding the article. This page doesn't talk about the use of hydrogen peroxide, so there is nothing here for you to understand even if written in simple English. This article is about reactive oxygen species generated in cells. If you can understand the paper you cited, then you can understand this article, but it is more likely you misunderstood that paper or wrongly extrapolated something from it. It reads to be an initial research that associates periondontitis with oxidative stress (it does not necessarily mean causation, although linkage of inflammation with oxidative stress is nothing new), and application of hydrogen peroxide does not mean oxidative stress. There are a couple more causal linkages before something like these can be considered for addition to the article. If there are useful review articles on these issues, we might consider putting that in, but even so we cannot put everything associated with oxidative stress, it is a huge research area. Hzh (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs a sub-section on photo-oxidative stress in plants

There should be a sub-section in this article which briefly describes the situation of photo-oxidative stress in photosynthetic organisms (eg, plants, algae, etc). I would do it, but right now I'm working on the "photoprotection" article, which is even more biased to animal systems. I hope to also create a separate page for "photoprotection in plants", which would involve more details and mechanisms, and both of these general articles can link to it. Hopefully I can get around to it, but I've got a lot of work ahead of me, and I know it's probably a bad idea to make stub-like sub-section, so I thought I'd add it here in the discussion. MM (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oxidative stress/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Changed rating to "high" because of medical importance. - tameeria 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)