Talk:Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

Question about addition to the Research Section
Hello all,

we are a group of clinical scientists and surgeons from the Charite University Hospital in Berlin, Germany. We have recently established a new enzymatic assaying method to measure extracellular nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (eNAD) in human plasma. Given certain modifications, this assay could even be used to measure outher pyridine nucleotides in other body liquids.

We think that this assay can provide a valuable tool for clinical research into the regenerative potential of eNAD with respect to surgical inverventions (we are focusing on liver resection and transplantations) and healthy ageing.

Would it be adequate to add a paragraph or two under the Research section of this Wikipedia article?

Many thanks in advance for your opinions!

Pmbrrrrr (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My expertise is not in this area, aside from my capabilities as a former part-time university reference librarian at a nursing school & somewhat experienced Wikipedia editor. However, I can direct you to several places where you can find policy, guidelines, explanations, & guidance. Although this article is not technically under WikiProject Medicine (WP:MED), that WikiProject is a parent to WikiProject Physiology. If you adhere to the WP:MED guidelines, I think you will avoid running afoul of any pitfalls.


 * Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide is a bit unusual in that it seems to concentrate on primary sources rather than secondary sources like surveys of the literature or systematic reviews. I would follow the style of the section & remain as neutral as possible. If you know someone either at either Wikipedia:Redaktion Medizin/Ansprechpartner or WikiProject Medicine/Members, you might ask them to review your proposed changes.


 * This might seem a bit extreme for what might be one or more sentences or a paragraph, but I would much rather see your edit persist.


 * Peaceray (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * While my organic chemistry falls far, far short of biochemistry, the substantial relevance of my formal physics and chemical-bonding studies, to the passage I edited here, suggests to me that I may have significantly ameliorated the confusion in the wording that I found. I have reworded accordingly, and hope that organic chemistry specialists will address any phrases where my edit went astray. While I am loath to opine, I suspect enthusiasm to exploit some relatively newly-encountered concepts may have brought enthusiasm to bear where knowledge had not yet been consolidated here, tho I crave attention to my edits by colleagues more modern-organic-chemistry-aware than I dare claim to be: I continue to impress the aircraft-promoting and opera-critiquing loveofmylife, when hardscience matters come up, but retain some caution at the frayed edges of my grasp of what the Galileo/Leibniz/Newton/

/Fourier/Darwin/Einstein/Bohr/nucleic acids et al. continuum have conferred upon our times.—JerzyA (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Information about NAD+ solutions is incorrect
The sentence "Solutions of NAD+ are colorless and stable for about a week at 4 °C and neutral pH, but decompose rapidly in acids or alkalis. Upon decomposition, they form products that are enzyme inhibitors.[5]" is incorrect. The cited article refers to NADH solutions. According to Sigma Aldrich, NAD+ "Aqueous solutions between pH 2 - 6, stored as single-use aliquots at -70 °C, are stable for at least 6 months. Neutral or slightly acidic solutions are stable at 0 °C for at least 2 weeks." (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/docs/Sigma/Product_Information_Sheet/2/n8285pis.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.155.2 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)