Talk:Coenzyme Q10/Archive 1

Update image
The image shows a range of compounds with different length isoprenyl tails - as the article is specifically about Coenzyme Q10 the image should be of that structure alone. --The chemistds (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Typical dosage
What are typical dosages used when Coenzyme Q10 is taken as a dietary supplement?


 * 30 mg with each meal seems a popular suggestion, but lower and higher doses are used as well. Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. If you have a medical condition, you may want to take more than 30x2 a day, although I wouldn't do that for long without medical supervision.


 * As per :


 * CoQ10 has a good safety profile. Daily doses of 50-100mg are well tolerated. Reported side effects are rare, but tend to be various forms of epigastric distress (heartburn, nausea, stomach ache) which can be prevented by consuming the supplement with a meal.


 * Intakes of 100-200 mg per day have been studied with no apparent adverse side effects, but muscle damage has been noted in at least one study of 120 mg per day over 20 days (perhaps due to a pro-oxidant effect and free radical damage in the muscle).


 * As per :


 * Adult levels of supplementation are usually 30–90 mg per day, although people with specific health conditions may supplement with higher levels (with the involvement of a physician). Most of the research on heart conditions has used 90–150 mg of CoQ10 per day. People with cancer who consider taking much higher amounts should discuss this issue with a doctor before supplementing.


 * Also see for info from NIH. --Amit 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the effective dosage for CoQ10 deficiency is 30 mg/kg/day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.162.241.200 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-hypertensive
Coenzyme Q10 has been described as an anti-hypertensive in several good-seeming studies (see a review) but this aspect of its use as a supplement is not listed in the article. As I don't feel authoritative on the topic I simply point this possible omission out for potential rectification by an expert. -- cmh 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This does seem well-established (the NIH web page on CoQ10, classifies this as being the application of CoQ10 for which there is the best supporting evidence. The code B they give this application is defined as "Good scientific evidence for this use". Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the analysis on the before mentioned page since it is not possible to understand on what basis the classification is given. I have looked up some of the references and they weren't convincing at all. To the contrary both the AAFP as an revieuw done in the annals of pharmocotherapy doubt the use of Q10 as a treatment option.

Links: AAFP Ann Pharmocoth

Dietary Sources
As a "Vitamin", the Co Q should have Dietary Sources (natural, herbs, ...), along with the dried powder.--Connection 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the German Wik says on sources: CoQ10 is abundant in organ meat (liver), oily fish (sardines, mackerel, nuts (e.g., pistacios), legumes, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, plantoils, cabbages,onions, potatoes, spnch, brussel sprouts, and broccoli.  Cooking/boiling can destroy it. 211.225.37.47 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that the concentrations found in foods should be mcg/g and not mg/g. This would correlate with other sources of information but I cannot access the full article cited. Not sure if I should change it or not. Anyone? DrSparticle (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

References and citation
This page looks great. Please make footnotes to the articles for each thing I've put a 'citation needed' flag next to, just to steamline the references. Thanks


 * Added some. Not exhaustive at all. Used the cite template. Hope that helps! :-) Jon 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does production decrease with age?
Why does the body's production of CoQ decrease with age? What produces CoQ? Is it produced by a gland? What can be done to prevent the decrease of production in the first place? Beyond the classroom 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this citation will due for the "decrease with age" question:

Kalen A, Appelkvist EL, Dallner G. Age-related changes in the lipid compositions of rat and human tissues. Lipids. 1989;24(7):579-584.

This reference was used by the Linus Pauling Institute at OSU for a similar age related statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpauley (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious cleanup needed
This article reads like an advertisement for supplement companies that sell this chemical compound. Much of the article is written in an an unencyclopedic informal tone. Some of the external links appear to be spam. Even some of the "references" are spam-like links to a ad-heavy Wiki site - hardly a reliable source. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up if someone more knowledgeable doesn't help out soon. Deli nk
 * I have reverted to an earlier version that didn't contain most of the material that I determined to be inappropriate. Some of the material I removed may be added back in if suitable sourcing for the claims can be found.  I also removed external links that didn't meet guidelines at WP:EL and replaced spam-like references that didn't meet WP:RS with fact tags.  Deli nk 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that cleanup also may be needed for the table that states quantities of Coenzyme Q10 in foods. Not only is the selection of foods listed very limited, but the source cited ([http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/coq10.htm www.thefactsaboutfitness.com) also is questionable. This appears to be an unprofessional, apparently non-authoritative webpage that cites a further source for its information. I am not qualified to evaluate the ultimate source, however, I hope that someone who is will determine whether a better source can be cited, or the section may need to be removed. 129.176.151.10 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Italic text== Title == I suggest to change the title to "Coenzyme Q10". In the research world (biochemical, clinical, etc.) and in real live the term "Coenzyme Q" is virtually not used. On Google "Coenzyme Q10" has about 1,1 million hits. "Coenzyme Q" has about 0,55 million hits, of which most, if you check, refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (or "Coenzyme Q-10") anyhow. Moreover, the biggest part of the references and of the external links of this article refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (and not to "Coenzyme Q"). So I suggest renaming the title and adding one paragraph about other (side-)chain length Qs. Furthermore, the international academic research is coordinated by "The International Coenzyme Q10 Association". So I also think that the drawing of CoQ3 should be changed in a drawing with CoQn (and saying that n=10 for CoQ10)Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ah shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.138.203 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Singh
Unless somebody has other info I will delete the reference to Singh soon, because it was found that this researcher was engaged in fraud. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * done Peter Lambrechts 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Benefits/function
I think this should be put in one paragraph, which I plan to do in the near future. Current article does not describe well enough the main function of CoQ10 in the body: Energy. (95% of all ATP is made through intermediation of this molecule). 2nd is antioxidant: eg. against endogeneous made radicals (in the mitochondria) as well;it's unique antioxidant function in the recuperation of the active form of Vitamin E, its preventive function on LDL; etc.Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. D.E. Wolf
Unless somebody has a good reason than I will delete the name of Dr. Wolf soon and have it replaced by Professor Karl Folkers and coworkers at Merck, Inc. The merit goes to Prof Folkers. Peter Lambrechts 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased editor?
Please be advised that Peter Lambrechts is Business Developer for Kaneka Pharma, a manufacturer of Q10 dietary supplements. He may therefore not qualify as unbiased. Please review his edits and the references. 83.83.20.55 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI His contributions to the Dutch article on Q10 have been reverted today. Wammes Waggle 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate on the Dutch page carries on; perhaps we should look at this article more closely for objective information Huijts 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sentence not based in reality removed
I'm Dutch so please excuse my English... However, I found a sentence in the article that I just cannot agree with. It says something like: "Coenzyme Q10 is used widely to treat breast cancer, heart disease and gum disease". It was asked for a reference, but I think this is just BS. Coenzyme Q10 is just NOT widely used to treat any of these diseases, and certainly is not used widely to treat breast cancer or heart disease. The author who originally placed this sentence put a link there to support his claim, but this link now gives you a wikipedia-like page that has all kinds of claims that are not valid or proven, stating for example what a shame it is that people with heart disease sometimes get open heart surgery while they could also take some Q10 (and live happily ever after).

Perhaps, perhaps using coenzyme Q10 could help some people (in particular people who might be low in their natural Q10) in preventing disease. (I am not sure this has been proven without a doubt for ANY illness in normal people; I know of some very very rare metabolic disorders where people do not produce coenzyme Q10 for themselves and then you do get ill and treatment with Q10 helps.). But this product surely can't cure you when you do have breast cancer or heart disease. You really need to see a real doctor!

So I found this sentence dangerous and untrue and removed it. Huijts 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found several examples of peer reviewed studies linking improvement or regression of heart disease with CoQ10 in the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, including:


 * The impact of coenzyme Q10 on systolic function in patients with chronic heart failure.
 * Normalization of ejection fraction and resolution of symptoms in chronic severe heart failure is possible with modern medical therapy: clinical observations in 11 patients.
 * Coenzyme Q10 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in ischemic and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.


 * There are too many to list. Many studies are small, but there are also several studies that suggest improved efficacy using newer preparations of CoQ10 with better bioavailability.Carlaclaws (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I found out later that on the removed link page it states that Q10 is widely used in Japan to treat heart disease and so on... Well, I wouldn't be able to check that... Anyone here living in Japan or being able to read Japanese?? Huijts 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that CoQ10 had drug status in Japan from the seventies till ca. 2001. Then it changed to food supplement status. Peter Lambrechts 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In Martindale (The complete drug reference)edition 2007, you can read for ubiquinone (=drug name for Q10) the following: "....It has been given by mouth as an adjunct in cardiovascular disorders, including mild or moderate heart failure. It has also been tried in other conditions associated with coenzyme deficiency, and is promoted as a dietary supplement. Ubidecarenone is under investigation for the management of Huntington's chorea and parkinsonism....".
 * Ubimaior is on of the (many) commercial names in Italy for Q10 as a drug used for therapeutic indication of acute and chronic hard disease ("...Deficienze del coenzima Q10 ed alterazioni del metabolismo del miocardio in cardiopatie acute e croniche..."). Peter Lambrechts 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a series of suspect statements and testimonials posted into this discussion section from the overtly biased editor 'Gentlewar', who needs to read the 'Talk page guidelines' before reposting. 'Gentlewar', please be aware that Wikipedia discussion pages are not a venue for promoting a product but are, rather, a place to discuss the content of the article being discussed. The goal is to improve the unbiased and objective content of the article under discussion. Overtly biased and unsourced content, particularly enthusiastic and unsourced testimonials, make all of your posted content suspect. For instance, within your first sentence, the unsourced "Verified by the FDA" statement immediately appeared suspect. A brief visit to the FDA website found no 'verification' of the properties of this coenzyme, but only an FDA judgement of a statement submitted as required by regulation by a manufacturer. The manufacturer indicated that they were making certain statments about their sold nutrient(s). Their statements included the following: "Research on CoQ- 10 has identified its role as a powerful antioxidant and has indicated that CoQ-10 supplementation may provide benefit in certain health conditions. In particular, CoQ-10 has been used to help maintain a healthy heart." (emphasis added) The FDA response to the statements included: "We certify the information in this notice is complete and accurate, and we have substantiation that the above statement(s) is truthful and not misleading." This is a far cry from "FDA verified". Finding your FDA statment to be overstated and unreferenced, and that your testimonials did not adhere to Wikipedia content standards, your posting has been deleted. Should you wish to repost, I would encourage you to first read the "Talk page guidelines" to determine how you might improve your discussion post towards the Wiki goals for content. Thanks. Lcph88 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a better reference for CoQ10 Synthesis
Reference 23 shows a nice charts that explains Coq10 synthesis and how statins interfere with its production, but isn't there somewhat more authoritative available? Fogr4 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ubiquinone reduction and e- shuttling
Since the CoQ10 page is included as a member of the Electron transport/oxidative phosphorylation system, shouldn't there be at least a brief section regarding conversion of ubiquinone to ubiquinol and its essential role in shuttling e- from Complexes I and II to complex III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.105.62 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange Symbol
In the table near the end of the article, the head of each column contains a strange symbol, a bow tie in a box, with no explanation. What does this symbol represent? Does it belong there at all? Is it graffiti? Jedwards01 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When you click on it, it sorts the column. --Arcadian (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

discovery and naming
According to    ( doi:10.1016/0925-4439(95)00028-3   )               Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1271 (1995) 195-204, Biochemical, physiological and medical aspects of ubiquinone function, Lars Ernster 3.,, Gustav Dallner a.b: Ubiquinone, under the name coenzyme Q, was put on       the metabolic map by Crane et al. [1] in 1957. It was proposed to be a component of the mitochondrial respira- tory chain, mediating electron transport between NADH and succinate dehydrogenases and the cytochrome system. Its structure was determined by Folkers and his colleagues [2] in 1958, and was found to be identical to that of a    quinone earlier described by Morton and associates [3] and called by them ubiquinone, with reference to its ubiquitous occurrence in various tissues (Fig. 1). Ubiquinone became the ~official' name of the compound, established in 1975 by the IUPAC-1UB Commission on Biochemical Nomen- clature [4].

--Rajah (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubiquinol
I do not find a section on Ubiquinol here. My husband and I both noticed an immediate increase in energy the first day we took a coQ10 supplement. (He takes 200 mg/day, I take 100 mg/day.) We are both in our 60's. Nothing seems to disturb his sleep, but that is one of his natural physical gifts - to be a sound sleeper.

I would like more information about ubiquinol. I have seen claims that it is absorbed up to 8X better than Co Q-10, and, therefore, that a smaller dosage is necessary. --Allison14 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Allsion14

Skin cream
I think there should be a section on how Q10 is used in the cosmetic industry. 142.166.189.202 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a sub-section for this with a journal reference as a starter. Perhaps others can help by adding some referenced facts. Lineslarge (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning on Q10 bottle
The bottle I have of Q10 has the following warning - "Do not take while on warfarin therapy without medical advice" gioto (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone know why?
 * Don't see this mentioned in the article, should it be?

Ok Google is your friend!
 * Interaction between warfarin and coenzyme Q10

Q10 in cancer treatment
An article about the possible role for Q10 in cancer treatment has been compiled by the National Cancer Institute. This reliable secondary source should be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

use in cosmetics
why is there no mention whatsoever about it being very popular in cosmetic products? (i guess it used to be more popular, but it's still around) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.145.7 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a sub-section for this with a journal reference as a starter. Perhaps others can help by adding some referenced facts. Lineslarge (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason for its increased use as supplement
In two words: commercial advertising. No earth-shaking studies have come out in support of this product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in Parkinson's
Could mention "In one phase 2 clinical trial, CoQ10 significantly slowed the progression of Parkinson’s disease (Beal MF 2003)." Found "COENZYME Q10 SLOWS PROGRESSION OF EARLY PARKINSON’S DISEASE " (ref: Shults et al. "Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline." Archives of Neurology, October 2002, Vol. 59, No. 10, pp. 1541-1550.) Also covered in - Started entry on main page. Rod57 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Side effects
The article does not mention side-effects of taking Co Q10 such as insomnia. See for example "Web MD" and "Mayo Clinic" Jerryfern (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CoQ10 is safe and well tolerated at up to 3000mg/d. And there are no significant difference in the frequency of adverse effects as compared to placebo (see studies Shults 2002, Ikematsu 2006, Ferrante 2005,etc) Peter Lambrechts (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the web:


 * Possible side-effects:
 * High dosages of CoQ10 can induce restlessness and insomnia. Long term side effects of high dose CoQ10 use are not clear at this time.
 * minor CoQ10 side effects have been reported, including insomnia, dizziness, Diarrhea, loss of appetite, nausea, stomach upset.
 * - [editors note] - I've tried taking CQ10 and lost my coffee cup 4 times in a row (OK I might lose it once regularly), but I've heard of others having this strange effect..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.27.139 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not an uncommon side effect - just not well studied as CoQ10 is not a patentable drug. Not everyone seems effected, but those of us that are, this brain-fog is sever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Lost your coffee cup?" If you read the CoQ Wikipedia page carefully, you will learn that it is absorbed from the intestine in the same way as lipids are: When you eat fatty food, gall bladder secretions will create micelles which convey the fatty acids and other lipids across the cell membranes. CoQ10 will hitch a ride on these micelles. Otherwise it will not be absorbed and cause nausea and gastric upset.


 * --  Solo Owl   21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)

Q10 insufficiency
This article goes straight from biochemistry to supplementation (without using the word) with no mention of sufficiency/deficiency in human health or performance or whether supplementation has any proven benefit at all in individuals who are not in some way already deficient.

I would almost prefer to see Q10 supplementation broken out as a separate page to keep the science and speculation better partitioned. (I tend to lump observational studies under speculation as per Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. On a good day, these studies amount to worthwhile speculation.)


 * And there are no significant difference in the frequency of adverse effects as compared to placebo

Frequency and intensity? Frequency statistics suffer from weak tails. How strong would the adverse effects need to be for these studies to have detected them (and at what predetermined level of significance?)

If there's not yet any research establishing human norms of sufficiency, could this article manage to point this out before jumping straight into supplementation? &mdash; MaxEnt 22:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Few readers will believe that there could exist even one medical product that has no adverse effects (side effects)88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS
Not one mention of WP:MEDRS on this talk page yet?! I'm going to mark the "Supplementation benefits" section with WP:NPOV, as I don't see something more specific for MEDRS problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good move, I was just looking at the templates to see whether there is some Medical Wiki specific template for such a situation. Nothing in WP, but especially not claims about medical benefits, should be based on so called original research. Any interpretations on the basis of single research findings are OR. You should always avoid using primary sources, and prefer systematic reviews. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubiquinone redirects here
Ubiquinone redirects here, which deals with Q10 and has consequently a strong human focus. There should be a page with all the various terpenylated quinones (plastoquinone, menaquinone, ubiquinone etc), but I can't seem to find it. This page sould have a for hatnote to that page if it exists as major quinone analysis is very important in bacteriology and has nothing to do with humans. Anyone seen this page? --Squidonius (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are 24 articles in Category: Benzoquinones. Is that good enough? If not, be bold, and create the Ubiquinones page. --  Solo Owl   06:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Treatment for eye conditions
My ophthalmologist prescribed 100mg of CoQ10 to improve my eye health after suffering from a Iritis attack and having previously had a retinal detachment. She got this information ta a conference she recently attended. I'm hoping someone passionate about this subject finds some good objective info on eye health and CoQ10 and updates the wiki article. Thanks. Grandeandy (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dental issues
The case has been clearly made in a review study from 1995 (British Dental Journal) that there is absolutely no beneficial effect on Periodontal Disease. Most studies proving otherwise are out dated, in-vitro or have serious errors in their set-up or statistics. Bruno Loos makes a good case about this in the Dutch Dental Journal (Nederlands Tandartsenblad). Based on this, Pharma Nord was sued and sentenced in the Netherlands for keeping on the false claims on Q10 and Periodontal Disease. Case was filed by the Dutch Academy of Periodontics (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Parodontologie) and the Dutch Consumers Alliance (Consumentenbond).

It's pretty much a clear case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

... And to my friend User:HMman: I did NOT remove ANY original research. Read the article, all the previous references are still there, but placed in the right context. The right context should be that Review studies supersede case-studies, in-vitro research and even clinical trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) --DeTandarts (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On a personal note; if I may; The frustrating thing about community editing efforts, like Wikipedia, is that you start writing about something that interests you (fun!)and you end up having to explain basic medical science to people (usually I get payed for lectures!). So please make changes if the translation is not correct or exact but don't make me explain medical basics any more! --DeTandarts (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any recent reviews or position statements that we could use rather than these rather old research studies, so we don't have WP:MEDRS concerns? --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the Review study is still more recent than the other studies which are from the period around 1971 - 1976 and 1991 - 1993. While the Review is from 1995. If there would be a great number of new studies ON DENTISTRY, after 1995, than yes, I totally agree we should be looking for a new review study. I just don't seem to find any in any serious dental magazine.... --DeTandarts (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much recent research interest in the area, which is why I was thinking a position statement might be easier to find. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last "position" I can find from a Dutch point of view is from 2001 in a newsletter (PDF warning) of the Dutch Academy of Periodontics (www.nvvp.org). And also according to WP:MEDRS the BDJ article is secondary source and all the others are primary source, which also just makes my case. --DeTandarts (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ..... sorry, it's december 2000.

Claims of benefits still not supported
It's been more than a year since I noted the citations, when given, for most of the claims of beneficial health are very much suspect--- yet the article is still inappropriately biased with claims that are not supported by the evidence. Citing a source that itself states "many people take CoQ10 supplements for [fill in the health benefit]" is *NOT* a valid citation that supports the claimed benefit. I suggest a very aggressive re-write, adding qualifiers to the many low-confidence citations so that the article reflects what the actual citations state, and not what the writers wish the citations had stated. This will upset "true believers" in the supplement, but the science at this point (November 2012) still does not support most of the beneficial claims being made. --Desertphile (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it's not an MEDRS source specifically demonstrating benefits as a supplement (I'm assuming you're talking about the "Supplementation benefits" section), then the material doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Interlinking problem or missing data?
Ubiquinone redirects here which talks only about Q10, the eukaryotic and alphaproteobacterial version, yet I cannot seem to find any article of the other variants. E. coli uses Q8, Psuedomonas Q9 and Legionella Q12, despite all three's membership in the same class, and Bergey's manual has tables upon tables of quinone analysis. The article menaquinone, its anaerobic counterpart, redirects to vitamin K, which talks only about its bizarre usage in Eukaryotes. My first guess it that this is not a gap in wikipedia but a bad navigation problem. However, I cannot seem to find anything. Anyone any the wiser? --Squidonius (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this seemed familiar. I encountered this some time back and posted my concern; forgot about it and only saw it again after posting again —embarrassingly… --Squidonius (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I thought this was confusing as well. I think this page should either be renamed to deal with all ubiquinones, or the scope should be limited to Q10 (including replacing the chemically ambiguous image). Importantly, ubidecarenone also redirects here, and this drug refers specifically to the Q10 variant.  Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are 24 articles in Category: Benzoquinones. Is that good enough? If not, be bold, and create the Ubiquinones page. From what you say, it would be of more interest to prokaryotes.


 * Judging from the diagrams, menaquinone has two rings and coenzyme Q one ring, so there is a difference chemically. I have no idea what the difference would be biologically. --  Solo Owl   07:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Original basic information has been deleted -why? Plus whole tone of page has been altered towards an overly negative aspect.
I remember reading in the Wikipedia page for COQ10 several years ago a couple of things which are now missing. They are very basic things and should not be up for disupte. One was how the substance was named, that it was given the name Ubidecarinone because it was found everywhere, hence the Ubi from "ubiquitous". This is now missing completely. Is this because it shows how benign this substance is and how basic to life it is? The other thing I remember reading was that COQ10 was a component in cell membranes and the Myelin Sheath. Any reference to this has also been deleted. Finally, it used to say that it was needed in those organs which had the highest need for energy and listed the heart, liver and BRAIN, now it has omitted the brain and says kidneys. Why has the brain been replaced by the kidneys? Any reference to COQ10 being beneficial to ANYTHING has pretty-much been removed and all references now cite that more or less nothing has ever been shown as to it's usefulness. Overall the page now gives a view that this substance is only relevant in small selective areas, and that it has virtually no benefit other than energy production in cells. I do not work for any company and am in no way associated with the COQ10 industry, other than a consumer of it. I have used it for a decade to prevent heart palpitations caused by a second nerve in my heart, I take 250mg a day and my heart behaves, I stop taking it and my irregular heartbeat returns after a few weeks and I have an episode. I have stopped and started using it many times over the years and it has been proven in my case to have benefit to my heart operating correctly, IN MY CASE. I understand that that anecdotal evidence such as this is not admissible on a Wikipedia page and am not requesting such to be added, however I find it concerning in the extreme that very basic information on COQ10 which might give the impression it is a benign substance (which it is) and which was there for a long time initially has now been removed and also that all references to ANY benefits noted in any trials anywhere have also been removed, giving the impression that it is of no use to anyone. This is absolutely untrue.

I would definitely like to see the information on how COQ10 is part of the make-up of cell membranes and Myelin returned to this page, plus the information removed about why it was given its name coming from the word "ubiquitous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurusthecat (talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TaurusTheCat have had this amazing situation of Coenzyme Q and your heart palpitations looked at by the community of cardiologists and maybe even neurologists? CoQ is all about electron flow; and however the redox poise is set up in your particular heart, it's got to be indicative of JUST how this mysterious system is regulated --- electronically. OTOH -- you don't need the hassle. Richard8081 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, the reference to the word "ubiquitous" could be considered useful as note on etymology, which is generally an accepted reason for inclusion in an appropriate section.  The inclusion of such a "History and Etymology" section seems quite common with respect to other types of subjects, such as {section link|Submarine sandwich|History and etymology}}  After a (not so quick) search, the only example I could find on a biochemistry article on a co-factor was this on the page for Pterin:


 * Albeit being only one example, this seems adequate justification for at least a tiny mention of the apparent origin of the term ubiquinone as related to the English Language word Ubiquitous.


 * No doubt there are other examples to be found, but I don't have the time right now to search all .. oh .. 1000 or so biochemistry articles on Wikipedia)


 * Of course, the word ubiquitous links to omnipresence - which is perhaps NOT quite the right word in this context :) While I am CERTAIN there is someone somewhere on the wild-wild-(west) thing that we call "The Internet" who actually maintains that Coenzyme C-10 is indeed omnipresent - such a statement regarding the word ubiquitous would certainly NOT be considered "encyclopedic" for an article concerning the compound ubiquinone.  So let us just stick to the "common vernacular" meaning of "found pretty much everywhere".


 * (Indeed, there is probably someone somewhere who might even maintain the actual omnipotence of Coenzyme Q-10. I.E. that God is actually just a rather simple benzoquinone ring with various things attached.  If so, I predict there would soon be another patient admitted to some mental institution, or a mass-shooting, as the first-ever example of CoQ-10 Rage :)  Thank you for your consideration. Good Day, sirs and madams. Jimw338 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Heart failure section needs updating
A more recent Cochrane review is available on CoQ10 for heart failure.



Much of what is included now does not belong there.

Speculation such as, "Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases" is not appropriate.

"the use of Coenzyme Q10 was associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA) of clinical status..." is gross cherry picking edit as the full sentence concludes "Although coenzyme Q10 is associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status and exercise capacity, the evidence is based on small trial numbers and is thus incomplete." and is not congruent with the current analysis, "There were insufficient data to compare results for total mortality, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation, NYHA clinical status...". Not to mention, "We included the data from seven studies with a total of 914 patients (Adarsh 2008; Berman 2004; Keogh 2003; Khatta 2000; Kocharian 2009; Morisco 1993; Munkholm 1999), which were at risk of bias." and "For the remaining outcomes (New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status, symptoms improvement as measured using the six-minute walk test), we could not combine any two studies together and all results came from individual studies."

The conclusion of the earlier analysis, "No change in practice is warranted at this time as more high quality and larger studies need to be conducted" is substantially different in the new review, "This review provides no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for patients with heart failure." and importantly, "Until further evidence emerges to support the use of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure, there might be a need to re-evaluate whether further trials testing coenzyme Q10 in heart failure are desirable."

An update of this section is in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary and undue
I reverted the addition of information from a single study that was all based on the primary study itself. WP:MEDRS directs editors to use secondary sources. WP:NPOV provides guidance on WP:DUE weight. I have created this section for discussion of adding information from this study to the article. At this point it seems primary and undue. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Need for more info on Ubiquinol?
Minus the overlinking, the unwarranted emphasis, the linkspam, and the questionable deletion; is there anything in these edits that is actually worth restoring? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Rod57 (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox width and SMILES representation (12/10/2014)
I just put a few spaces in the middle of the SMILES representation string so that the infobox didn't take up 90% of the screen horizontally.. How should this be done "correctly"? I don't know how SMILES representation works, so the breaks may not be in places that "make sense". Jimw338 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Biosynthesis not clear
HMG-CoA reductase is in the midddle of the mevalonate pathway but it's not clear how that relates to the 3 steps listed. Need more detail please. - Rod57 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Genes in biosynthesis - query ADCK3
Now says "Genes involved include PDSS1, PDSS2, COQ2, and ADCK3(COQ8,CABC1).[37]" but ADCK3 seems to be involved in the respiration pathway not the biosynthesis of Co Q10. (ref doesn't show online content to support use) PDSS1/2 seem to build the side chain, and COQ2 joins the 2 parts. Can we say that ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible mistake
In the line: "There are three redox states of CoQ10: fully oxidized (ubiquinone), semiquinone (ubisemiquinone), and fully reduced (ubiquinol)."

Is "semi-quinone" actually supposed to be "semi-oxidized"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF95:D469:8009:30BB:A07A:9C93 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Health effects, etc
The health section in this article more or less says that no study has ever found that it really does anything. Should this be cleaned out? JSR (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the negative results in that section need to stay. There is widespread discussion (public, and from medical professionals) claiming health benefits for CoQ10, so I think it is appropriate to report on the level of evidence from research studies, even if the results are generally negative. Also, if the discussion of negative/equivocal results is removed, you can be sure people will come by and add positive claims, backed up by weaker evidence. And then those positive claims will tend to stand, in the absence of these negative reviews. Gpc62 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think, however, that this statement should appear in the introduction of the article that should provide a generic overview of what the molecule is. Since it is explained in the correspondent section, I remove it from the introduction. Conjugado (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Dietary concentrations
Chicken heart - who eats chicken heart? People who come to this article are often looking for dietary advice on sources of CoQ10. Chicken (muscle) is a very popular food source, and an alternative to red meat, but is not listed. On the Livestrong site it indicates that chicken contains about half that of beef and Linus Pauling Institute agrees with this (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/coenzyme-Q10). This would be useful to know. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Chicken muscle should be listed, however, people DO eat chicken heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chicken heart is certainly a food, and available as such from butchers here in USA. It's instructional to list in any event, because CoQ10 concentration tend to be higher in organ meats, and also because the heart naturally has higher concentration on account of the constant energy demands. Drsruli (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coenzyme Q10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209123002/http://usp.org/USPVerified/ingredients/ingredients.html to http://www.usp.org/USPVerified/ingredients/ingredients.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Parkinson's, diabetes
These two sections present no useful information, are WP:PRIMARY and certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, and are unencyclopedic. Removed here for discussion, if warranted. --Zefr (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A 2011 review by the Cochrane Collaboration suggesting CoQ10 supplementation might benefit people with Parkinson's disease was subsequently withdrawn from publication following a review by independent editors.


 * In a study published in 2018 CoQ10 may be effective in alleviating insulin resistance. But it needs to reach the mitochondria and taking supplements doesn't not achieve that.

Focus on CoQ10
The article treats ubiquinone and CoQ10 as being synonymous, when they are not. The article itself says that the 10 refers to the number of isoprenyl subunits while also showing that as few as 6 may be present. I.e. CoQ10 is a specific kind of ubiquinone and ubiquinone (Coenzyme Q) can range from CoQ6 to CoQ10. I’m not an expert in organic chemistry (I’m an Environmental Science major), but I believe this warrants a reorganization of the article or making a separate article for CoQ and CoQ10. CoQ10 should not be placed hierarchically above ubiquinone. Jwfelder (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

add fatigue comment?
"Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we conclude that CoQ10 is an effective and safe supplement for reducing fatigue symptoms." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449413/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20results%20of,supplement%20for%20reducing%20fatigue%20symptoms. also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30935528/ but https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22682875/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.63.86 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Frontiers journal / fringe journal / primary source. Especially for this quackery-centric topic these are all too-weak sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * not high enough quality to pass WP:MEDASSESS — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)