Talk:Suramin

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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): SF355317, Rlfunk928, Aneelamm, Rtcastil. Peer reviewers: Merctang, Sarahsana, Laneyluong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which image?

I don't know much about the chemistry of this but so I don't what to just change the image, but which image should be use?

Note this is not about image type but that the vector image (the SVG) does not have the branches with sulfur, hydrogen, and three oxygens. I just don't know if it should not be used for this reason. Scaper8 14:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. The sulfonic acid groups are expanded in the SVG, as they should be for clarity, while on the PNG they are depicted as shorthand. I'd use the SVG, as it provides a more accurate depiction of the molecule. Fvasconcellos 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it was not the sulfur group but the one with carbon (I was looking at the wrong thing when first typeing this, sorry). I will however, change the image for the time being to the SVG image. Scaper8 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the methyl groups are shown as well—they're just implicit (i.e. not labeled "CH3"), as is customary on skeletal formulae. Fvasconcellos 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fvasconcellos, the SVG image has an error in it. One of the sulfonic acid groups shows a double bond to an OH and a single bond to an O, instead of the other way around. Can you provide an updated image with a correction? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ed. I didn't create this image originally so I am loath to overwrite it, but I will create a new version. Thanks for bringing this to my attention (can't believe it's been 10 years!). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fvasconcellos: thanks for fixing it "in-place" at the original image file. Otherwise we would have to go through a "replace all uses, hold discussion of value of old image (presumably has none), delete old image (obvious outcome of discussion)" for no real gain. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was part of my reasoning as well. Besides, Ayacop hasn't edited since 2012 (a shame). I think this provides a more satisfactory outcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thank you, Fvasconcellos. I originally approached you as I noticed you are an active editor and Ayacop is not. EdChem (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germanine and 309 F

The relation between 309 F (which is Fourneau 309) and Germanine could be of some interest : it shows the relation between Deutsch and French politics and scientists. That is why I dare (or dared ?) to set a link from Fourneau to French page Ernest Fourneau. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-Harmful Changes to Urine"?, shows market bias

Cloudy urine has to be examined for casts. Slight clouding or frothy urine indicated albuminurea, it is an unfortunate aspect of the drug that is worth the risk in life threatening protozoal infections. If the albuminurea get heavy then that should be a great cause of concern. Casts in the urine demand that treatment be stopped. The drug accumulates in the kidneys more than any other organ. The statement that the urine changes are "non-harmful" can be harmful to the patient and their family who would be the first ones to notice this problem, and might let it slide with this statement discounting the risks. I have cited Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 6th edition (1980), pages 1080-1071 as a source. Blood in the urine is also stated in this source. Expanding the market to children with Autism greatly based on small clinical trials also greatly expands likelihood of an increased number of children needing kidney transplants or artificial kidney treatments. This statement of "non-harmful changes in the urine", poses risks, it should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.105.9 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


MOA?

This article really needs a mechinism of action section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.4 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Trials?

Is this the same Suramin that was used for trials against HIV? I know it was tested in the 80s... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2432836 -Etoile ✩ (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this, based on the anecdotal information in the documentary, "We were here" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.128.108 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding this. Large history of suramin in HIV. Was thought to be the 'answer' at one time in the 80's.jWbuhles (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC name is incomplete

The chemical name is incomplete. Please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.21 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed, not sure when that happened. Thank you for noticing and happy editing! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Headlines from DisabilityScoop.com Study Points To Possibility Of Reversing Autism Symptoms New research suggests that a decades-old drug may be able to reverse symptoms of autism and now the medication is set to be tested in children with the developmental disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.242.5 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autism reverse study in mice

The recent addition has been removed by two editors (Formerly 98 and DMacks), claiming it is not in accordance with WP:MEDANIMAL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Animal Even though i pointed out the addition is not breaching MEDANIMAL, DMacks stated in his revert = BRD do not edit-war a disputed item, especially if the dispute centers on interpretation of a guideline.

The addition was: A study concluded that suramin was able to reverse autism-like symptoms, originating from environmental factors, in mice. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115163535.htm -- There is no cherry picking or no hiding that this is an animal study, thus the addition appears to be a valuable contribution to the article here. prokaryotes (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Procaryotes, Are you a microbiologist? If so I'd love to chat sometime. I'm worried about your addition because so few results in animals translate into people, especially in psychiatry. There are a lot of people out there with autistic kids and they may read way too much into this very, very early stage result. From a guidelines perspective, Science News does not really fit the MEDRS definition of a secondary source, which would be at a minimum a peer reveiwed review article. I don't want to have a big fight over this but I don't think this addition is a good idea or MEDRS compliant.Formerly 98 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i get your point, that makes at least some sense, thanks for explaining! However, concerned parents will read this research elsewhere, and WP has become more limited. Also this could impact research grants or funding. In my opinion this belongs in the article. I added it, reverted one time, now it's up for other editors to decide. Im done here. p.s. Mice are very close to humans, thats why they are often used in research, i.e. Ebola studies, and im not a Microbiologist, even though my nickname might suggest that. prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a small trial at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine in children with autism has found some promising results. --Inops (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Project Outline

Group 27 plans for Suramin Page:

Sections to add:

  • Mechanism of Action
  • Adverse Effects
  • Interactions
  • Society and Culture?
  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacokinetics
  • Resistance

Sections to expand/modify:

  • Medical Uses
  • Adverse Reactions
  • Chemistry
  • Research


Databases and search engines used will be from the following: LexiComp, Micromedex, UpToDate, Pubmed

Aneelamm (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 28 edits

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

On the whole, the submission reflects a neutral point of view, especially with regards to the chemistry and pharmacology. This information is presented in a factual tone without evidence of bias. One area that appears to be more biased is the "Research" section, in particular the last five single-line paragraphs. While these are exciting developments in expanding the place of suramin in therapy, these are stand-alone primary sources that have yet to be verified or cited in widespread use of the drug. Including them here might be seen as advocating these particular groups.

Ktham (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…

The first headline should be "Uses" or something similar to ensure it is a broad header that encompasses the material discussed in that section. In the third paragraph of adverse effects, the second sentence should read "Other rare". For the heading "Mechanism of Action", action should not be capitalized. Other than these small changes, the edits follow Wikipedia's manual of style.

Sarahsana (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Sources:

  • Source #8: Prevention and Treatment". web.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2016-11-08.
    • While the source is from Stanford.edu, it appears to be from a class page. The page contains grammatical errors such as misspelling of broad as “braod” under Ivermectin. The page also does not contain an author. It is unknown if it is peer reviewed. Looking at the class humbio103 page, it appears as though this page is created by students for a class assignment. I would consider citing a different source.
  • Source #10: Kaplan, Lawrence D.; Wolfe, Peter R.; Volberding, Paul A.; Feorino, Paul; Abrams, Donald I.; Levy, Jay A.; Wong, Roberta; Kaufman, Lilian; Gottlieb, Michael S. (1987). "Lack of response to suramin in patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex". The American Journal of Medicine. 82 (3): 615–620. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(87)90108-2. PMID 3548350.
    • Source is behind a paywall.
  • Source#11: "Chemotherapy of Protozoal Infections: Amebiasis, Giardiasis, Trichomoniasis, Trypanosomiasis, Leishmaniasis, and Other Protozoal Infections | Goodman & Gilman's: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 12e | AccessMedicine | McGraw-Hill Medical". accessmedicine.mhmedical.com. Retrieved 2016-11-10.
    • Source is behind a paywall.
  • Source #12: "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 19e | AccessMedicine | McGraw-Hill Medical". accessmedicine.mhmedical.com. Retrieved 2016-11-08.
    • Source is behind a paywall. This source is also the same as the source listed above it.
  • Source #14: Fourneau, E.; Tréfouël, J.; Vallée, J. (1924). "Sur une nouvelle série de médicaments trypanocides". Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences. 178: 675.
    • This source is written in French. For the English Wikipedia, I would suggest using a source written in English or translated to English.
Group 27 will also refuse to make changes in response to this recommendation, as the source is used under history, and Group 27 has no control over the nationality of the scientists who first published the formula for suramin.SF355317 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #16:"Drug treatment corrects autism symptoms in mouse model". Medical Xpress. 13 March 2013.
    • I would consider using a different source. This article is more of a primary source. I do not know how reputable the website is. It also contains ads for drugs which might present a conflict of interest.
Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #17: Elizabeth Norton (17 June 2014). "Century-old drug reverses signs of autism in mice". Science News.
    • This also seems like primary source. It mainly presents the words of the researchers and does not evaluate the primary information much.
Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #20: Khakh BS, Burnstock G, Kennedy C, King BF, North RA, Séguéla P, Voigt M, Humphrey PP (March 2001). "International union of pharmacology. XXIV. Current status of the nomenclature and properties of P2X receptors and their subunits". Pharmacological Reviews. 53 (1): 107–118. PMID 11171941.
    • As a note, the linked page on the PMID contains a broken link to the full text page. It may be beneficial to link the full text to the resource section.
  • Source #24: Beindl W, Mitterauer T, Hohenegger M, Ijzerman AP, Nanoff C, Freissmuth M (August 1996). "Inhibition of receptor/G protein coupling by suramin analogues". Molecular Pharmacology. 50 (2): 415–23. PMID 8700151.
    • Source is behind a paywall.
  • Source #25: Chaves-Moreira, Daniele; de Moraes, Fábio Rogério; Caruso, Ícaro Putinhon; Chaim, Olga Meiri; Senff-Ribeiro, Andrea; Ullah, Anwar; da Silva, Luciane Sussuchi; Chahine, Jorge; Arni, Raghuvir K. (2016-08-26). "Potential Implications for Designing Drugs Against the Brown Spider Venom Phospholipase-D". Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. doi:10.1002/jcb.25678. ISSN 1097-4644. PMID 27563734.
    • Source is behind a paywall

Laneyluong (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any signs of plagiarism or copyright violation. Everything looks coherent and well written with the sources provided.

Merctang (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Soja you're abusing your powers. Following me.

I am giving facts.

It is not available by any pharmacy or any publicly available source. It has been patented out and remains unavailable to the public.

"Suramin was made at least as early as 1916. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. In the United States it can be acquired from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The cost of the medication for a course of treatment is about US$27. In regions of the world where the disease is common suramin is provided for free by the World Health Organization (WHO)."

Here is how to make it: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/suramin#section=3D-Status — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can't buy it over the counter. It has severe side effects and AFAIK it's only available as a treatment while the patient is closely monitored (e.g. in a hospital). If you have other information, please provide sources that support them. Sjö (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, is not valid reason to revert changes. Where are your sources for changing it? I'm stating facts from inside the article and clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply copying text from the lede and then adding you own unsourced and AFAIK incorrect assertions. Per WP:BURDEN you are required to back up your changes with sources. Note that unsourced text can be removed.Sjö (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Remove it from the article then. Touche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd only be removing facts you site, I'm siting, to remove so you're not wrong. Destroy the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP works: please see WP:BRD and adjust your approach accordingly. You're making changes beyond what was originally there--the original does not seem to be the problem (and you don't even dispute it yourself). But apparently someone else thinks the repetition of it and the additional comments added are a problem. You added two claims that are not supported by the refs, and "banned" is not a neutral term in this context. DMacks (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the letter A, should just say the letter A. No history, no education. Claims I stated are true. All you have to do is look up and read the article. That is why I said what I said. It is banned, that is why only the CDC and WHO give it out. Now I'm being attacked and banned for giving out the publically available chemical process that someone doesn't comprehend and attacks me for it. I say uneducated, and I get banned. You all need to grow up and allow your bias to pass and except real facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have serve side effects, you obviously didn't even read the post, nor my link, nor look it up.
The pubchem link does not say how to make it, and even if it did, Pubchem is just a mechanically collected set of data and links not necessarily WP:RS content itself. And WP is not an instruction manual either. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does, you're slow. Hexasodium;8-[[3-[[3-[(4,6,8-trisulfonatonaphthalen-1-yl)carbamoyl]phenyl]carbamoylamino]benzoyl]amino]naphthalene-1,3,5-trisulfonate is a start. BANNING ME SHOWS you're threatened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. A chemical formula is not the same as an explanation how to manufacture something. Sjö (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the IP was thinking??? DMacks (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjö: I added some actual content about the synthesis (with journal refs), including the variety and generality of the approaches. Not surprisingly, this isn't all secretly-held government info:) DMacks (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're exactly what is wrong with WIKIPEDIA and why no one gives money.
Making Aspirin would be off limits to you too, I bet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk • contribs)
None of the sources in the "Banned to the Public" section support that it is not available to the public. On the contrary Progress in Human African Trypanosomiasis, Sleeping Sickness says that it is produced by Bayer under the name Germanin. The sources show that it is available to the public as needed to treat disease. This is the same as any prescription drug and it is not something that is elaborated on in other articles about drugs. Certainly it is not called "banned". Sjö (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Suramin"