Talk:Methylcobalamin

I believe the scientifically most often used term is methylcobalamin, not "mecobalamin"
Thus, this should be fixed so that methylcobalamin is the name of the Wiki, and mecobalamin directs TO it. I'll try to do this, but if I get stuck, somebody else will have to attempt it. S B Harris 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Methylcobal is a regd. trademark and the article is pure advt. It should not have place in Wikipedia. The article must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.177.134 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

''' This article is just an ADVERTISEMENT, not informative, lacking information on treatment of sciatica, arakawa's syndrome II, and many more. Please advertise using other methods like getting a proper PAID DOMAIN. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.68.25 (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This article needs reputable sources and more information
I'm new to editing on wikipedia, but I will try to add what I can. I deleted a source that was not verifiable. Best. Bostonfiasco (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There are serious issues with the sources and text of this article. See this cite and note the references it uses!: http://www.todayhealthnews.info/2011/10/b12-1000-mcg-methylcobalamin.html

I am also removing footnote 5 because it is not verifiable, it merely lists names (similar to what this site does: http://www.todayhealthnews.info/2011/10/b12-1000-mcg-methylcobalamin.html) Bostonfiasco (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE APPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT ON "SCIATICA", WHERE ARE THE APPLICATIONS FOR "Arakawa's syndrome II". CLEARLY THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN POOR TASTE JUST TO "ADVERTISE". PLEASE TAKE THIS ARTICLE DOWN NOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.68.25 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this article is a mess. Shouldn't the info without citations be removed? It's amazing how many articles on wikipedia are written so poorly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubborn Myth (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Methylcobalamin is not converted into adenosylcobalamin - citation needed.
This entry states - "Methylcobalamin on the other hand is not converted into adenosylcobalamin" and quotes Ref 3. to support the claim.

However, having read the whole paper (not just the abstract) I can find no statement to back up that claim. The paper does imply that it may be so by stating "it is important to treat vitamin B12 deficiency with hydroxocobalamin or cyanocobalamin or a combination of adenosylcobalamin and methylcobalamin" but the authors seem to have just assumed that the conversion does not happen. No evidence is given to support this assumption.

18:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Hollis_f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollis f (talk • contribs)

Yes, a citation is in fact needed. I did some research, and it turns out that the claim is not true. Ingested methylcobalamin is first converted by MMACHC into Cob(II)alamin, just like cyanocobalamin, hydroxocobalamin, and adenosylcobalamin. Cob(II)alamain is then converted into the 2 other forms methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin. Here are some references: doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.057877, doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.04.005, doi:10.1017/S1462399410001651; Humanoid (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the article. First I added the information of how methylcobalamin is first dealkylated and then regenerated. Then I deleted the unsourced and unsupported claim that methylcobalamin is not converted to adenosylcobalamin. Then I improved the information remaining, showing that it is only one author that claims it is important to use both adenosylcobalamin and methylcobalamin. And then re-ordered the paragraphs. I read the cited article too, and the author indeed does not show a rational justification for using both adenosylcobalamin and methylcobalamin instead of just methylcobalamin alone. Humanoid (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Study from 2015 concludes: “supplementing [methylcobalamin] […] is unlikely to be advantageous compared to [cyanocobalamin]”
https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201500019 --Gorlingor (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"According to one author" - is this relevant in the lede?
If I'm not mistaken, the policy is to avoid any references to primary sources, and here we have seemingly such a reference in the leading part of the article (at the very end of the leading part). --CopperKettle (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)