Talk:Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide

PubMed result.
There is only one Article from a peer review source that addresses EHT directly. In the scientific community this is has promise but not well researched. There will need to be much more research before it is truly accepted. Here is the abstract from the site. Neurobiol Aging. 2014 Dec;35(12):2701-12. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.06.012. Epub 2014 Jun 17.

Therapeutic benefits of a component of coffee in a rat model of Alzheimer's disease.

Basurto-Islas G1, Blanchard J1, Tung YC1, Fernandez JR2, Voronkov M2, Stock M2, Zhang S3, Stock JB4, Iqbal K5.

Abstract

A minor component of coffee unrelated to caffeine, eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide (EHT), provides protection in a rat model for Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this model, viral expression of the phosphoprotein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) endogenous inhibitor, the I2(PP2A), or SET protein in the brains of rats leads to several characteristic features of AD including cognitive impairment, tau hyperphosphorylation, and elevated levels of cytoplasmic amyloid-β protein. Dietary supplementation with EHT for 6-12 months resulted in substantial amelioration of all these defects. The beneficial effects of EHT could be associated with its ability to increase PP2A activity by inhibiting the demethylation of its catalytic subunit PP2Ac. These findings raise the possibility that EHT may make a substantial contribution to the apparent neuroprotective benefits associated with coffee consumption as evidenced by numerous epidemiologic studies indicating that coffee drinkers have substantially lowered risk of developing AD.


 * Actually, there are several peer-reviewed studies on EHT: see, for starters, those cited in previous versions of the Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide wiki page. The problem, as highlighted in my discussion with User:Jytdog above, is that they're all primary sources (including the one you quote here). This is contrary to Wikipedia's intention to be encyclopedia-like, focusing on well-established facts rather than the latest reports. The WP:VERIFY guideline advises editors to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."Mikalra (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)