Talk:Resveratrol/Archive 2

GA review
Those who decide to review this articles GA nomination please put your information below here. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this article, and overall it's very well written and well referenced. It easily passes criterion 1a,2, and 3, of the GA criteria. There were a couple of minor issues that I found, primarily little manual of style issues, most of which were easier to fix in a minor edit than list here. A couple of issues remain, for which I am placing the article on hold pending revisions.

First, I would suggest moving the 'chemical and physical properties' section up to the beginning (first section) of the article. Since a lot of the physical properties are in the infobox anyway, it makes more sense to have this relatively short section closer to the front, rather than further down.

Second, in the 'supplement' section, the following sentence seems a bit out of place: "In a 2004 issue of Science, Dr. Sinclair of Harvard University said resveratrol is not an easy molecule to protect from oxidation. It has been claimed that it is readily degraded by exposure to light, heat, and oxygen." It seems to deal more with physical properties rather than supplements, so I would think it makes more sense to move it to that section. I'd also move the next paragraph, starting with, "the pharmacokinetics of resveratrol metabolism" to the section under physiological effects dealing with metabolism. That section is really short, and could use a bit more information.


 * As a small point of clarification, Sinclair, if he indeed did say those things (see references at end of article for problems with attributions made to him), is somewhat mistaken. The molecule is quite vulnerable to UV light, which will oxidize it, but exposure to air takes much, much longer. Sinclair's comment (again, if he did even say that) has been used to argue that much of the resveratrol available commercially is of poor quality or even biologically inactive.  Todd Cooperman's Comsumer Labs (see https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Resveratrol_Supplements_Including_Red_Wine_Grape_and_Polygonum_Sources/Resveratrol_Red_Wine/) tested a lot of these supplements and found very little evidence of widespread oxidation, but occasional other problems instead (items not contained labelled amounts).  If you protect the stuff from UV, and minimally from the air, it will retain an un-oxidized status for quite some time.  However, even a few minutes of direct midday sun is enough to cause chemical change in even pure resveratrol. 75.69.254.59 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Dr Doug Watt

Third, modify the subsection titles under 'plants and foods' to remove the title of the article from the subsection title. They seem a bit wordy with 'Total resveratrol content of wines and grape juice', plus, the manual of style suggests against including the article title in subsection titles. A title of 'Content of wines and grape juice' is sufficient.

There are two external links in the cancer prevent and life extension sections to sites in the article (one to the Chemoprevention database and the other to Sirtis Pharmaceuticals). These should be removed from the article text -- only internal wikilinks should be present in article text. The Chemoprevention database sentence reads a bit more like an advertisement for that database than information you would find in an encyclopedia article. The sentence should be rewritten to include the actual information, with citations, to what is being discussed.

Make sure that any external link references (such as references to an article on money.cnn.com, or any other external link used as a reference) include not only the link itself, but also the author (if available), title, date of publication, publisher, as well as the date that the URL was last retrieved. It might help to review WP:CITE for help with this.

There is a link reference (not inline cited) in the adverse effects section to 'relentlessimprovement.com', which goes to a 404 not found. This should be fixed; either remove the information or convert the link to an inline citation with a link that works.

There's an awful lot of external links in the article. While most of the links in this case appear to be legitimate, and not linkspam or advertisements, this could be a problem in the future as it might be easier for advertisers to sneak advertisements in unnoticed. Any links in this section that are already used as an inline citation in the references section should be removed. Further information on external link guidelines can be found at WP:EL.

As an aside note, perhaps a photo of the container of a commercially available resveratrol product would be a nice addition to the supplements section. But this isn't crucial for GA status at this time.

Other than these issues, I think this article meets the GA criteria. Let me know when this is done and I'll promote (I'll probably also revisit in a couple of days, too). Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence: "Resveratrol is a phytoalexin produced by several plants." The next sentence describes synthetic manufacture. What is a "phytoalexin"? I have to follow a new link to find out what the fourth word in the article means. Axl 10:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you think of the changes I've made.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement, but not quite right. "Resveratrol is a phytoalexin produced naturally by several plants when under attack by bacteria or fungus. Phytoalexins are antibacterial chemical substances produced by plants as a defense against attack or infection by pathogens." (The bold emphasis is mine.) So phytoalexins are produced when under attack by fungi (as well as bacteria). Phytoalexins have an antibacterial effect. Don't they also have an antifungal effect? From the text, I would guess that they do. The phytoalexin article indicates anti-insect effect. Additionally, there is some redundancy: replace "chemical substances" with "chemicals". "Fungus" should be the plural "fungi". Axl 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Check now.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. :-) [I also removed some redundant text.] Axl 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Some of the subsection headings might be reorganized into main sections at some point (e.g. 'mechanism of action'). From my experience, a lot of the folks at WP:FAC kind of frown on excessive subsection headings, preferring good, well-written, short, main sections. Could use another image or two as well. But overall, I think this meets the GA criteria, so it has been promoted. Cheers! Dr. Cash 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the effectiveness of resveratrol, see article in Journal of Biological Chemistry:

A Resveratrol Reversal♦: SRT1720, SRT2183, SRT1460, and Resveratrol Are Not Direct Activators of SIRT1 J. Biol. Chem. 2010 285: e99922. doi:10.1074/jbc.P109.088682 ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbpett (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "unchanged" pertaining to resveratrol in the blood is a confusing word choice
The use of the word "unchanged" (pertaining to resveratrol in the blood) is a confusing word choice. It is too ambiguous (could mean that the blood levels of resveratrol are unchanged or alternately that unchanged (bioavailable) resveratrol has entered the blood stream. (The latter was the intended meaning although the use of the word 'unchanged' makes it hard to initially figure this out).

Using the words "bioavailable resveratrol in the blood" would be a much clearer phrasing.

Sean7phil (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

New discovery on resveratol extracted from wine
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=19172

I think you should add this one as a source


 * Is there a version of this article that we can read without having to log in? Shanata (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mixing of Imperial and Metric units
I think it would help the article, if metric and imperial units were not mixed together such as mg per ounce, it should be mg per ml or litre. Either both should be used or just metric, as the usa is the only country that still uses the Imperial system for weights (according to wikipedia). 90.205.124.120 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, We should probably use metric through the article. You can change them if you want, or I'll do it sometime later. Feel free to do it yourself though.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mixing of different units
I think mixing different units in the same context is confusing because the quantities can't be easily compared. For example in "Content in Selected Foods", we see µg/ounce, nmol/g, and micromol/L. While maintaining the original units of a referenced article helps with verification, conversion to a common unit in a given context would facilitate comparison. Alan8 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree!70.113.69.97 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Resveratrol Stability
With the sentence: Dr. Sinclair of Harvard University said resveratrol is not an easy molecule to protect from oxidation. It has been claimed that it is readily degraded by exposure to light, heat, and oxygen." It is implied that Resveratrol is unstable in normal atmosphere at room temperature; however this is not the case: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=10051967&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google Should be edited for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucidWay (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections heard, so I have edited the article.LucidWay 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adverse effects and unknowns
"Reasons why recommending a population-wide increase would be premature: Little is known about the absorption and clearance of resveratrol, the identities of its metabolic products, or its effects on the liver. The research on resveratrol has focused on its short-term effects and has been mainly done on non-human models." ---Roy, H., Lundy, S., Resveratrol, Pennington Nutrition Series, 2005 No. 7

Above is from a 2005 source, however the text in the pdf article is taken word for word from a 1999 quackwatch.com article: (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/resveratrol.html). This quackwatch article references a 1998 article. Quack watch is not pier reviewed and most importantly this statement made from 1998 observations is no longer true in 2007.

We know a lot more about Resveratrol Metabolites:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12523673 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15333514&query_hl=60&itool=pubmed_docsum

Outdated material should be removed.LucidWay 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well feel free to remove what you think should be removed and add what you think should be added. I agree that this article needs a lot of work before reaching FA status right now. There are a lot of studies out there that I haven't implemented into this article yet.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed old material and added a snipet from the latest study refuting earlier resveratrol claims.LucidWay 10:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make any other changes you see necessary. Also don't forget to use edit summaries explaining what you're doing along the way.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure to use those, (I'm still kind of new to the wiki world).LucidWay 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: (1) Quackwatch is peer-reviewed (2) In any case, it meets WP:RS and WP:MEDMOS (3) This is not an 1998 article; it has been updated since then and the latest citations are from 2009. --Nbauman (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
Article quotes: "Resveratrol makes you look like a trained athlete without the training,' Dr. Auwerx said in an interview."
 * Give me a break! Tagging because this does not sound like a trustworthy source and is quoted at great length; recommend getting rid of reference to this "interview". Jeff Dahl 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you see nonsense like that, Just delete it. No need for the procedures of tagging it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming
Where does the name come from? -- Beland 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinot noir and Resveratrol
Is that chart on resveratrol content correct? There are lots of sites saying that Pinot noir has the highest content, not the lowest. For instance: http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/2.5.98/resveratrol.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.98.123.66 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Supplement test removal
Please see User_talk:Cacycle. Сасусlе 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a product guide. If a test finds that there was considerable mislabeling, then write about that fact. And most importantly, add a reference. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good starting points are WP:NOT, WP:MoS, and Verifiability (and Sock puppetry). Please do not revert the removal of the test results without adequate discussion on this talk page. Сасусlе 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, but you added this "A number of companies have been created during the past 18 months with no previous experience in supplement manufacture to take advantage of resveratrol's popularity." without a factual reference. This appears to be an opinion, and should not be a part of the article as well.


 * I did not add this sentence. Сасусlе 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I took it out. Mabidex (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in my comment to you Cacycle, If you want to delete all references including the supplement section to do away with the promotions that appear, then I think that is a good idea. If you don't I would promote to leave the tests that are currently done to supplements, while leaving out the name of the supplements if you so desire. I don't agree that this information should be done away altogether. Mabidex (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cacycle, and others what are the thoughts on this proposal? I looked at the text CaCycle deleted, and fits within the wikipedia verifiability policies. Please comment if if this is incorrect. If no message is recieved by February 6th, I will consider reverting this information back again. Thanks 63.144.197.126 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear 63.144.197.126, as stated above, Wikipedia is not a product guide. It is not appropriate to have a list of food supplement brands in a Wikipedia article together with detailed test results. BTW, I forgot to mention the Spam policy above. Again, please do not revert the removal of the test results without adequate discussion on this talk page. Сасусlе 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I was reading this part in the supplement section "Capsules are sold containing from 1mg to 1000mg of resveratrol.[citation needed]". My question is this, if a citation is needed, but we are not allowed to link to a product that states "1000mg Capsule", how do we go about creating a citation properly to avoid the challenge? Do we link to an image of the "Supplemental Facts" section of a product, or..??? - Thanks for letting me know. Mabidex (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If there was a review of the resveratrol dietary supplements market, then it could be used to support this 1-1000 mg range. But for now I am just deleting this sentence. Paul gene (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All statements in the wiki do not require a reference. If we all agree 1000 mg capsules are available to anyone doing an internet search, then we can state this fact without linking to an seller. This keeps the facts and eliminates the incidental advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added the following text recently, and wanted to know what the rules where for video: More recently on April 1st 2008, Barbara Walters interviewed Dr. Sinclair on resveratrol and longevity for the average human. Mabidex (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier, unless there is a review in a reliable source, researching the dose range of the resveratrol supplements, the 1-1000 mg dose range is original research and not acceptable. Youtube is not a reliable source of information so the video you placed there is not acceptable. Read WP:RS guideline on reliable sources. Paul Gene (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So the correct term or sentence would be something like "Commercial Supplements are available at up to 1000mg per capsule". Then I would send you a sample to verify this is correct, as you are considered an independent reliable source and not I? Mabidex (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, ideally it would be an article in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Failing that, a sources with good fact-checking procedures, such as mainstream magazines and journals (Newsweek, New York Times, Guardian, Fortune) would do. It is easier with the FDA-approved drugs, where the FDA or manufacturer gives the doses available. The other complication is that on their own the doses (1,2, 3, 10 or 50 mg or 1000 mg) are not notable so they do not deserve the mention in the article unless there is something special about them.Paul Gene (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eat an apple, not wine
I saw an article somewhere - cannot remember where - that said that some other chemical rather than resv. was now believed to be the important one, and the article had graphs showing that you got far more of the other chemical by eating an apple rather than drinking wine. 80.2.204.101 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apples contain on average per volume about five times the amount of proanthocyanidin found in wine, with the highest amounts in the Red Delicious and Granny Smith varities. Hammerstone J. F. et al http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/8/2086S Journal of Nutrition. 2000;130:2086S-2092S This article ought to make more obvious that proanthocyanidin is now thought to be the active ingredient, not resveratol. 80.0.98.236 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Little or no resveratrol in Muscadine grape
There is actually little or no resveratrol in Muscadine grapes: --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.calorierestriction.org/archive/read.php?2,179974,179998#msg-179998
 * http://www.calorierestriction.org/archive/read.php?2,182133,182133#msg-182133

Cancer Section Needs Work
MastCell asked me to explain the errors he's made in reverting my edits. 1) leukemia, lung, and pancreatic cancers were not "injected" as you backed up Paul Gene on stating. 2) All 3 were not even clearly "useless" taken orally as you both claimed  3) there is no statement in the article that it has low bioavailability in animals (i know that is false in other articles anyway)  4) none of the facts i stated were different from what was presented in the article (almost direct quotes), nor an overall misreprentation (as you stated without explanation) of what was there, nor did i change any of Paul Gene's comments on my last edit that you reverted except to add "citation needed" where i believe he had no source to back it up, let alone the one being referenced. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on where the "injected" issue is coming from. The source indicated that, for pancreatic cancer at least, resveratrol showed some interesting in vitro results in cell lines, but was ineffective in an in vivo hamster model of pancreatic cancer. It is not correct to say that it is "effective" for pancreatic cancer, as the source specifically mentions the lack of in vivo efficacy. Bioavailability is an interesting issue. The source says: "However, much work needs to be done to improve the bioavailability and pharmacologic properties in the different target tissues." A 2006 article from Nature Reviews has this to say: "Attempts to show favourable effects in vitro have met with almost universal success, and have led to the identification of multiple direct targets for this compound. However, results from pharmacokinetic studies indicate that circulating resveratrol is rapidly metabolized, and cast doubt on thephysiological relevance of the high concentrations typically used for in vitro experiments." Both sources note the substantial in vitro evidence and interesting though not entirely consistent in vivo evidence, and both view it as a promising agent for investigation in humans. Also, both sources note that NCI-sponsored clinical trials in humans are underway; we should probably note this in the article, since at present I think it says that no human trials have been conducted. Re: your last point, you are correct, and I self-reverted and restored your citation-needed tag. MastCell Talk 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As an explanation, poor bioavailability means that the drug does not reach the systemic circularion or targeted tissues in sufficient concentrations. See for example, from reference : "No resveratrol or resveratrol conjugates were detectable by HPLC in the lung tissue of animals receiving a resveratrol-supplemented diet. It remains to be defined whether resveratrol given in the diet reaches the lung tissue in sufficient concentrations, or in a biologically active form." and "However, much work needs to be done: (1) to improve the bioavailability and pharmacologic properties in the different target tissues" Paul Gene (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) See also : "The  lack of effect  of resveratrol concerning the chemopreventative  as well as antioxidative parameters examined in our experiments gave rise  to the assumption that the bioavailability of the  parent compound  was likely to be insufficient  to provide  effective levels in the corresponding  organs. " Paul Gene (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Lung--From reference : "dietary resveratrol (68 mg/kg) [...] showed no effect on B [a]P-induced lung tumorigenesis in A/J mice (Berge et al.,2004b).Similarly, no effect on lung tumor multiplicity was shown in A/J mice fed a diet supplemented with resveratrol (500 ppm) from 1 week after B[a]P and 4-(methyl-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) treatment until termination (Hecht et al., 1999)." Paul Gene (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The effectiveness of resveratrol in animal cancer models is limited by its poor bioavailability.
 * It [resveratrol given orally] also had no effect on lung and pancreatic cancers, and leukemia.[citation needed]

Pancreatic--From reference : "However, resveratrol given in the diet at a concentration of 10 ppm failed to show significant effects on BOP (N-nitrosobis(2-oxopropyl)amine) initiation of hamster pancreatic carcinogenesis(Kuroiwa et al., 2006)." Paul Gene (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Leukemia -- from reference : "In vivo, however, only weak potential anti-leukemic resveratrol activity was suggested at a dose of 80 mg/kg body daily for 60 days inmice implanted with a mouse myeloid leukemia cell line, 32Dp210, despite the strong anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic activities of resveratrol against these cells in vitro (Gao et al., 2002)." The emphasis here should be on weak and potential. If you look at the original paper (Gao, 2002, ) to which the review  refers, it states that the effect even at the highest dose of resveratrol was not statistically significant: "The overall log rank test for these four groups was not significant (P = 0.103), nor was the test comparing the 80 mg/kg dose group to the controls." Gao et al go on to conclude: "Resveratrol at 8 mg/kg body weight was chosen because this dose results in a plasma concentration of resveratrol which can be achieved by daily consumption of three glasses of red wine, sufficient for cardioprotective effects. No antileukemic activity of resveratrol was observed at this dose. Even when the size of the leukemia cell inoculum was reduced and the dose of resveratrol was increased 10-fold, resveratrol doses of 8 mg/kg or 40 mg/kg body weight (4-fold higher) were ineffective in slowing down the progression of leukemia. At a dose of 80 mg/kg body weight (9-fold higher), resveratrol protected only a small fraction of mice from leukemia-induced death. These findings suggest that resveratrol, despite its antileukemic effects in vitro, is not very effective in preventing the progression of leukemia in vivo." Paul Gene (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lung cancer: You chose to mention only the negative research.  What about the positive research just one paragraph above the one you chose to cite: "Doses of 2.5 and 10 mg/kg resveratrol were also found to significantly reduce the tumor volume (42%), tumor weight (44%) and metastatic potential (56%) in mice bearing highly metastatic Lewis lung carcinomas"  Pancreatic cancer: 10 ppm in the diet is about 10 mg/day of resveratrol for an animal the size of a human, about 0.14 mg/kg body weight.  This is such a small amount compared to other resveratrol cancer research, that it should not be used to make such declarative and blanket statement "has no effect". I agree with your common sense approach concerning leukemia and changing "has weak potential" in the reference to the more negative statement "has no effect".  Likewise, we should use the same common sense towards pancreatic cancer.  24.214.120.227 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About the positive result for the lung cancer, the review refers to Kimura and Okuda, 2001 . Kimura and Okuda state in the original paper: "Tumor growth and final tumor weight were significantly inhibited by the intraperitoneally administered resveratrol at doses of 2.5 and 10 mg/kg, but 0.6 mg/kg of resveratrol had no effect." I was talking about oral administration of resveratrol, which has no benefits. The fact that the administration of resveratrol by injection helps mice with carcinomas is already noted below. (I shall remove "in high doses" since 2.5 mg/kg is not high.) I will note that resveratrol at a low dose was ineffective for pancreatic cancer. Paul Gene (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Buccal administration
The citation from is accurate. It is buried deep within the full text article: "When t-RES (50 ml of a solution containing 23 μg t-RES/ml) was orally administered to humans (four different people in our laboratory, 26–44 years old), and retained in the mouth for 1.0 min before swallowing, 37±5 μg of RES/l were measured in plasma just 2.0 min after administration." Paul Gene (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Buccal Delivery Not Reliably Cited
The statement that Resveratrol is most easily absorbed through the mouth's epithelial tissues in humans doesn't seem to be mentioned in the cited source, and I can't seem to find the source anywhere. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.78.89 (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah ha, ok, I found it. Apparently the cited study gave 4 people in the lab a solution to swish around in their mouths- so no control, blinding, randomization, and veryyyy small sample size. If anyone has a more rigorous study to cite, please update this with it. 67.159.78.89 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 5-10 people sample size is normal for pharmacokinetics studies. There is no need for control sample, blinding and randomization since the result is a concentration of resveratrol in blood measured by objective chemical analysis (HPLC). Paul Gene (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the enormous interest in this subject, I find it hard to believe that this result has been reproducible. I've modified the paragraph to make it clear that the statement describes a 2002 report, and have moved it to a less prominent position in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold f (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While the interest may be enormous, the supplements companies generally do not have money for pharmacokinetics studies. On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies, who have money, are not usually interested in unpatentable drugs. For example, it took almost 40 years from the discovery of selegiline to its first buccal formulation. As for the placement, the result is remarkable and deserves the placement in the beginning of the paragraph. It is broadly consistent with the results of animal studies, which show higher bioavailability of resveratrol when dosed in drinking water (absorbed through mucous membranes) vs galvage (absorbed from GI tract). The fact that the peak concentration of resveratrol from vine in humans achieved within 15 min also indicates absorption through mucous membranes. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Supplement companies don't want to use money for pharmacokinetic studies (why spend money to possibly prove something does not work). The issue with oraltransmucosal dosing with resveratrol is solubility/ having the molecule in free form. Alchol will solve this, but Additionally, the half-life is wrong. Bocoock and a later work showed that it has a half life of 1-3 hours. Yes, 14 minutes came from Sinclair's Nature review, but follow his citations. It was never shown to have a half-life of 14 minutes in the paper he cited, so I wonder if that was him blowing a little smoke, which is the strategy of some scientists.


 * However, the barrier to oraltransmucosal dosing is solubility of the molecule. They delivered the molecule in alchol, but just placing a chunk in your mouth will not work because the resveratrol molecules will not be in free form (PMID: 19665039). It will not be in free form with Sucrose lozenges or Gum form. Without indication of future success, no one will spend the money to see if it is viable or feasable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.172.146 (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

blood sugar lowering in header
"Extremely high doses (3–5g) of resveratrol in a special proprietary formulation were necessary to significantly lower blood sugar.[2]" The dose/time and species name should be stated or this isn't meaningful and should be removed (eg. 3-5g/day in mice).--Xris0 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The original clear wording somehow got changed. I restored it Paul Gene (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Recommendations
Hi Paul, I understand you are the person that may let me know if this is acceptable. I wanted to see if the following can be added: "Existing recommendations of doctors are limited, but it is being considered for prostate cancer as part of a dietary recommendation in some circumstances." and the use this link: ftp://www.cohensw.com/pub/pca/WaltDs_PCa_Experience.pdf

However, it is a document made by a patient describing the doctors that have prescribed medications, along with a "(Dr. Charles “Snuffy” Myers)" that also prescribed 1000mg/day of resveratrol as a small part of a treatment, and dietary recommendation.

Is this information something that can be posted? I also don't know where this would fit in the main body.

Trans-Resveratrol?
I keep reading on the Internet about this chemical and yet the main article makes no mention of it. Wikipedia redirects Trans-Resveratrol to the Resveratrol page. Can someone perhaps put a explanation of what Trans-Resveratrol is, even if it is only an alternative name? --Quatermass (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trans-Resveratrol is most stable (and most usual) isomere of Resveratrol. Krasss (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Resveratrol has a double bond which it rotates around like an independent rear axle of a car. Trans is the active form, but cis-trans is confusing to many people. If you gave me a bunch of Cis-Resveratrol I wouldn't see it as a different molecule. If I wanted Trans-resveratrol I'd just adjust the Ph down and make it pop back into Trans form.

Resveratrol used in recent study on mice (11/28/08)
Here is a science daily article on some recent research where reservotrol was used on lab mice. Here's the relevant quote from the article, "That's precisely what happened. Using a mouse genetically altered to model lymphoma, Oberdoerffer administered extra copies of the sirtuin gene, or fed them the sirtuin activator resveratrol, which in turn extended their mean lifespan by 24 to 46 percent."

As a consequence of also using copies of the sirtuin gene, the general thesis of the article supports the causal relation between reservertrol, sirtuin, and mean lifespan extension in a mammalian system. Note that the reference to the original research journal article is cited at the bottom of the science daily article. However, this is not my area of research, so I leave the use of this reference for someone more qualified. Mystyc1 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Related compounds" part should be deleted
The "Related compounds" part of the article is a hodge-podge of irrelevant information and should be deleted.

"Scientists are also studying three other synthetic compounds based on resveratrol which more effectively activate the same biological mechanism.[98]" is irrelevant and based on unreliable source.

"A study by Professor Roger Corder has identified a particular group of polyphenols, known as oligomeric procyanidins, which they believe offer the greatest degree of protection to human blood-vessel cells. These are found in greatest concentration in European red wines from certain areas, which correlates with longevity in those regions, though a causal effect is still unclear. These new data may have an impact on the supplement market.[100] Because they are present in red wine in more significant quantities, they could offer an alternate explanation of the French paradox." This paragraph is about vine components and has nothing to do with resveratrol.

"Sirtris, a GSK company, is evaluating a family of seven enzymes associated with the aging process. The discovery of the first human sirtuin, SIRT1, in rats, mice and dogs on calorie restricted diets are healthier and live longer. Like SIRT1, the most studied mammalian sirtuin, SIRT3 protein levels are also increased in response to calorie restriction, suggesting that both SIRT1 and SIRT3 could regulate metabolism during fasting and calorie restriction by manipulating the activities of key metabolic players.[101]" This is a promotional blurb from Sirtris page. Not relevant to resveratrol and taken from unreliable source.

71.244.121.113 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources seem pretty reliable to me: npr.org, physorg.com, nature.com for the first section and the second for Strtris may need more since its only source is sirtrispharma.com, either way there is absolutely no consensus here on to keep or discard this section, so I've reversed your edits for the time being. You need to wait for more editors of this article to weigh in on the matter before deleting an entire section with a weak argument (reliable sources). Raeky (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that I'm not opposed to removing a related compounds section for this compound, but I feel that related compounds, if they are really related on a research level is relevant to the scope of the article. It's common for other medicine articles to have links to or sections about related/similar compounds, so this wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Raeky (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph "Scientists are also studying..." is not relevant to resveratrol. It is also based on news story, and thus not very reliable. WP:RS: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." 71.244.121.113 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph "The compound called SRT1720 seems to be 1000 times.. " is not relevant to the content of the article and should be deleted. It is also taken from a website (physorg.com) which is created via user's postings. The physorg.com FAQ specifically state that the site is not reliable: "Our site contains content that we create as well as content provided by third parties. This content includes, among other things, product reviews and services offered by parties other than PhysOrg.com. We do not guarantee the accuracy, the integrity, or the quality of the content on our sites, and you may not rely on any of this content." Here is the relevant WP policy WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." 71.244.121.113 (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph ""Sirtris, a GSK company, is evaluating..." is not relevant to the content of the article and should be deleted. It is taken from the promotional site for the Sirtris company. There are no citations or any other material that would prove the statements on the site. In addition, WP:ELNO guidelines discourage linking to the websites with promotional materials: "Links normally to be avoided: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." 71.244.121.113 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid an edit war, I've asked for an outside opinion on the issue, I'm prepared to go with whatever recommendation they make, I hope you will do the same. Raeky (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Related compounds RfC
The section "Related compounds" in the article, user 71.244.121.113 wants to delete the entire section, on what I feel is weak arguments. I'd like an outside opinion on the matter. &mdash;Raeky (via posting script) 12:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See the above section and our two talk pages for the discussion about the issue. Raeky (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the current version quite acceptable, except for "the greatest degree of protection". Perhaps another phrasing is more appropriate. Pietrow (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong much wrong with it, either. Related compounds with similar functions do seem to be relevant to the topic, especially if they have no page of their own. It might need some tidying up, per the above, but I can't see any reason to delete the section wholesale. Anaxial (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you more happy with the current version or the previous version that has more information/compounds. I chose not to revert his last edit since it was a compromise by keeping some content, but I'm not entirely happy with deleting all the content that was there previously without some consensus. — raeky ( talk 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that the deleted parts were irrelevant and based on unreliable sources. I explained it above. I encourage Raeky to present his reasons for wanting to restore the deleted parts. See WP policy WP:Burden - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." 71.244.121.113 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the matter, but I agree with 71.244.121.113 on the third paragraph. It reads like a commercial, but most importantly as a visitor it is very hard to guess what is the link with Resveratrol.  If you really want to add it again, I would suggest (1) remove the company name ("other research groups" might be more appropriate though I can imagine this could be debatable), (2) add a clear link with the main article, (3) try to find a peer reviewed study in addition to the company link.
 * For instance, Sirtuins in mammals: insights into their biological function is a highly cited (69 citations) review article. For people not familiar with peer review, that generally means the editors of the journal find someone well-respected in the field and ask them to write an overview of the current literature (going back up to about ten years).  Review articles are usually of a high standard.
 * I repeat my advice is well-intentioned but not well-informed! Pietrow (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be important to list the Sirtuins, the cite Pietrow lists is viable to summerize, plus the Sirtris page has links to like a hundred published articles about their research. Also on SRT-1720 it states Resveratrol is an activator of the gene SIRT1 (which Sirtris is studying). I can't see how a company studying the gene(s) that Resveratrol activates is not relevant in the Resveratrol article. Along with other known (more powerful) activators like SRT-1720. The issue is not that this info is irrelevant, it's that it's not been written in a way to convey it's relevance and it doesn't have proper citations. Could we work together to find these references and reword the section (and maybe parts of the article it's self) to convey these relevancies? — raeky ( talk 04:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Raeky, you said that you are going to abide by the Rfc. One person stated that the chapter is good as it is, and another said that the Sirtris fragment sound like advertisement and should be re-written. If you feel strongly about including info on other sirtuins, please do so in a way that makes it relevant to the resveratrol article. In addition, you must not refer to the promotional materials or mention Sirtris exclusively. By now there are probably hundreds of academic researchers and dozens of companies studying sirtuins pathways. 71.244.121.113 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also a side note, 71.244.121.113, if you revert again you'll be in violation of the three revert rule so be careful. I'd suggest we hatch out the changes here instead of going back into an edit then revert pattern of the past. — raeky ( talk 04:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What three revert rule? Do you know what you are talking about? WP:3RR: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". 71.244.121.113 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read it more carefully, the rule is intended to prevent edit warring the continued reversal of the material you don't want on there regardless of SEVERAL other editors opinions it should remain. Even if it is over a day or two you are definitely approaching war editing. Consensus would have to be obtained at some point and you'll have to agree to whatever *WE* (which includes you) decide. — raeky ( talk 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oenology: red wine procyanidins and vascular health
Corder's research from Nature would tail nicely with the discussion at the end of Resveratrol part about what explains the beneficial effects of wine. Moving it there. : "Regular, moderate consumption of red wine is linked to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease and to lower overall mortality1, but the relative contribution of wine's alcohol and polyphenol components to these effects is unclear2. Here we identify procyanidins as the principal vasoactive polyphenols in red wine and show that they are present at higher concentrations in wines from areas of southwestern France and Sardinia, where traditional production methods ensure that these compounds are efficiently extracted during vinification. These regions also happen to be associated with increased longevity in the population." If somebody wants a more detailed presentation of this research, the best place for that is probably French paradox. 71.244.121.113 (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
It seems that the last sentence in the opening paragraph 'Despite much speculation that resveratrol might extend lifespan, scientific data indicates that it has no impact on normal mammalian lifespan.[4]' is not borne out by its reference [4]. 160.42.167.131 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the whole paper in reference 4 (Pearson, 2008), but here's the abstract:
 * "A small molecule that safely mimics the ability of dietary restriction (DR) to delay age-related diseases in laboratory animals is greatly sought after. We and others have shown that resveratrol mimics effects of DR in lower organisms. In mice, we find that resveratrol induces gene expression patterns in multiple tissues that parallel those induced by DR and every-other-day feeding. Moreover, resveratrol-fed elderly mice show a marked reduction in signs of aging, including reduced albuminuria, decreased inflammation, and apoptosis in the vascular endothelium, increased aortic elasticity, greater motor coordination, reduced cataract formation, and preserved bone mineral density. However, mice fed a standard diet did not live longer when treated with resveratrol beginning at 12 months of age. Our findings indicate that resveratrol treatment has a range of beneficial effects in mice but does not increase the longevity of ad libitum-fed animals when started midlife."
 * That doesn't contradict the last sentence--this study doesn't appear to demonstrate an impact on mammalian lifespan--but I agree that the reference does not directly support the claim that resveratrol doesn't impact mammalian lifespan. I've replaced it with a recent review that I feel more directly addresses recent lifespan research; feel free to revert if you disagree. Shanata (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this: However, mice fed a standard diet did not live longer when treated with resveratrol beginning at 12 months of age. Our findings indicate that resveratrol treatment has a range of beneficial effects in mice but does not increase the longevity of ad libitum-fed animals when started midlife. not direct support? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) On second thought, changed the life extension sentence to reflect the literature. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Life Extension Foundation And RevGenetics
Hello, I'd like to help expand the Resveratrol Supplementation section of this page, being that I am a consumer of resveratrol supplements for many years and attribute a lot of my personal well-being to that supplement. I had added some references from Life Extension Foundation articles earlier but The Sceptical Chymist decided to have my contribution removed due to the fact that "LEF is not a reliable source". I'd like to understand why LEF is not a reliable source for Resveratrol supplementation facts. They produce high-quality supplements, sponsor human clinical trials on supplements, and fund clinical research on resveratrol. I referenced abstracts that show which studies have been referenced in the resveratrol articles I used in my contribution to this page. I want to improve the Supplementation area of this page with information on the supplementation research that is out there and has been covered by LEF and other researchers. Please help me define "reliable" source in this case so I can help build this section further. Thiagodoherty (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for scientific articles are generally peer-reviewed scientific journals, textbooks and monographs. Sometimes, you can use big-name newspapers such as NYT and Guardian, if you need to describe some related non-scientific facts, for example sales, popularity, societal opinions. Websites and promotional materials such as LEF and its publications are not acceptable. For details, please see WP:MEDRS and other guidelines and policies quoted therein. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears LEF does not continue to provide new formulations, while other specialist companies continue to research better absorption and bioavailability. LEF tends to report studies that do not originate at LEF, to back up selling their supplements. I do not see any clinical studies. Currently they only offer regular resveratrol and do not micronize it, like RevGenetics for better absorption. They do not emulsify it, and use none of the techniques that Sirtris made public to produce a better supplement. I have to agree with the Sceptical Chemist on this one, LEF is not a source of unbiased information.

Upkeeping Wikipedia Verifiability Standard For Claims of Contention
I came across this in the opening sentence of Adverse effects and Unknowns and saw that this had recently been added. I noticed it straight away as it was poorly worded, and was clearly an allegation without a cited source: "Warning do not take resveratrol. Dizziness, shortness of breath, and anaphalixis may result from taking the supplement sold as Resveratrol Ultra." By anonymous user 76.121.65.141. In accordance with WP:VERIFY and WP:VAN I removed the claim until it can be corroborated by a legitimate source reference. B.Soto (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing info: Resveratrol content in berries
Is there a Reliable source with info about the level of resveratrol in berries - bilberries and blueberries in particular? MaxPont (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I began using Resveratrol 100 by Jarrow recently each day for a number of weeks, one each morning. After a few weeks, I began to experience shortness of breath, a couple heart palpitations over two weeks, and an allergy turned on with a feeling of inflammed bronchial tubes. I also felt my endocrine system became imbalanced and I felt very nervous at times.

I spoke with a trained nutritionist at our local vitamin store about it 2 weeks ago and he said some people have come into his nutrition/vitamin department and told him they experienced shortness of breath and some heart papitations when taking resveratrol. He recommended I stop taking it for a week and see how I felt, then go to the doctor if the symtoms continued so I could get an exam. But after I immediately stopped taking the resveratrol that next day, I felt better and better as the time went by and now I am not experiencing the shortness of breath. My endocrine system is getting more in balance and I am feeling more like my self again. I was also under severe stress at the time this occurred, but I observed the cause of my reaction was a bio-chemical one, especially since I am not feeling the negative symptoms anymore but I still have some stressful situations I'm dealing with.

My husband is taking the same resveratrol and he has had no such symptoms. I had taken a few resveratrol tablets on and off a few months before with no noticable symtoms, but never consistently like I did this time, each morning for a number of weeks. It seems like when I took it every day for a longer period of time, I began to have a problem that has now stopped with the cessing of the use of the item.

The nutritionist told me that some people say they can take it with no problems and some come in and tell him they had the above problems with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.107.4 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Structural Similarity with Diethylstilbestrol Caution!
Diethylstilbestrol(DES) was widely used in women in the 1950's. Female offspring of those women had a high incidence of vaginal and cervical adenocarcinoma (0.01% to 0.1%). In general estrogen use during pregnancy increases the incidence of nonmalignant gentital defects in offspring of both sexes. (See: Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 11th edition, page 1552). DES and Reversatrol share the structral features of having phenolic rings attached in a trans configuration to an ethylene molecule.

The common defect in the evaluation of the cancer risks in female offspring done in laboratory animals reported to the FDA is that exposure to Reversatrol was mainly done post copulation or during lactation. This ignores the fact that being a fat soluble drug, females who used Resversatrol long term prior to pregnacy would have higher levels in their bodies as compared to those females who would only start consuming the substance at the beginning of their pregnancy. This is not an abstract concept that reasonably should have been overlooked. These studies were done to promote Resversatrol use, not to properly evaluate safety for the public.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/gras_notices/710120A.PDF Ribazole (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribazole (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

71.114.195.58 (talk)

No sources for Internet Scam section
Hid it until I find some. FX (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resveratrol is Not a Direct Activator of SIRT1 Enzyme Activity.
Hi al;,

The study below (i can provide the full paper) claims that the in vitro sirt1 activation of resveratrol is an artefact of the testing method. Resveratrol does not activate SIRT1 directly in vivo. Seems to me like a valued addition the the resveratrol wiki.

Beher D, Wu J, Cumine S, Kim KW, Lu SC, Atangan L, Wang M. Source: Department of Neuroscience, Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks Resveratrol is a plant polyphenol capable of exerting beneficial metabolic effects which are thought to be mediated in large by the activation of the NAD(+)-dependent protein deacetylase SIRT1. Although resveratrol has been claimed to be a bona fide SIRT1 activator using a peptide substrate (Fluor de Lys-SIRT1 peptide substrate), recent reports indicate that this finding might be an experimental artifact and need to be clarified. Here, we show that: (i) the Fluor de Lys-SIRT1 peptide is an artificial SIRT1 substrate because in the absence of the covalently linked fluorophore the peptide itself is not a substrate of the enzyme, (ii) resveratrol does not activate SIRT1 in vitro in the presence of either a p53-derived peptide substrate or acetylated PGC-1alpha isolated from cells, and (iii) although SIRT1 deacetylates PGC-1alpha in both in vitro and cell-based assays, resveratrol did not activate SIRT1 under these conditions. Based on these observations, we conclude that the pharmacological effects of resveratrol in various models are unlikely to be mediated by a direct enhancement of the catalytic activity of the SIRT1 enzyme. In consequence, our data challenge the overall utility of resveratrol as a pharmacological tool to directly activate SIRT1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.230.214 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing sources and information
Just because you think one source counters another, or whatever it is you are trying to say in the comment section, rather than using the discussion page, that doesn't mean anything. It is your original research. You don't get to decide what is true here. Removing information from a valid source because YOU decide it isn't right, that is original research on your part. Go publish a paper and we will be happy to add your input. Thanks. FX (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear, removing two sources, both from PubMed, based on your reasoning, whatever that may be, is not cool. It's not how things work here. Please stop. FX (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mix up original research and editorial judgment. There are more than 3000 references on resveratrol in PubMed. You cannot include all of them. You have to choose most relevant ones using you editorial judgment. In other words, you have to choose notable information. I suggest that including mice studies when there are very similar human data is unnecessary, clutters the article and amounts to nothing but useless trivia. By analogy with other drugs, see for example featured articles sertraline, bupropion and linezolid animal data in such cases are not included. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup issues

 * The sentence "Resveratrol also significantly increases natural testosterone production..", refers to a forum, which is not a reliable source per WP:RS. This reference should be deleted. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The mechanisms of resveratrol's apparent effects on life extension are not fully understood, but they appear to mimic several of the biochemical effects of calorie restriction." - presupposes that it has been proved that resveratrol extends life. Not at all -- resveratrol did not increase the life span of mice, and even results with D. melanogaster or C. elegans are not consistent. I suggest rephrasing this as "The mechanisms of beneficial effects of resveratrol are not fully understood." The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol and testosterone
The following sentence is problematic:

"Resveratrol also significantly increases natural testosterone production from being both a selective estrogen receptor modulator and an aromatase inhibitor.  "


 * The first reference does not say anything about "natural increase of testosterone" it only states that resveratrol increased levels of testosterone and gonadotropins in rats and their sperm counts. I suggest rephrasing it accordingly, and mentioning that the results were obtained in rats, not in humans. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The second reference is completely fake. It does not mention testosterone at all. I suggest removing this reference. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The third reference does not say anything about resveratrol increasing testosterone via aromatase inhibition. To the contrary, the reference suggests anti-testosterone action: This cell proliferation specifically induced by testosterone was significantly reduced by 10 microM resveratrol. Nor anything is said about resveratrol being "selective aromatase inhibitor". The reference only states that resveratrol inhibited the aromatase activity with an IC(50) value of 25 microM - nothing about selectivity. Human experiments shown that even with 5 g of resveratrol per day, the maximum level of resveratrol only reaches 5-10 microM. At this level aromatase activity of resveratrol is irrelevant. I suggest removing this reference.


 * The forth reference is again fake. The reference does not mention resveratrol at all. It is about aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, and I made the deletion, before I even looked at this "talk" page. Inquiring minds interested in "Leder BZ, Rohrer JL, Rubin SD, Gallo J, Longcope C (March 2004). "Effects of aromatase inhibition in elderly men with low or borderline-low serum testosterone levels". J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89 (3): 1174–80. doi:10.1210/jc.2003-031467. ." can see it referenced in the anastrozole and aromatase inhibitor articles, where it's relevant.HowardJWilk (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Resveratrol and lung cell culture. Misrepresented routine experiment.
The following sentence in the article is problematic:

In December 2007, work from Irfan Rahman's laboratory at the University of Rochester demonstrated that resveratrol increased intracellular glutathione levels via Nrf2-dependent upregulation of gamma-glutamylcysteine ligase in lung epithelial cells, which protected them against cigarette smoke extract induced oxidative stress.


 * This sentence suggests that resveratrol increased glutathione level in a cell culture. That is a misreading of the reference . According to the reference, resveratrol restored CSE-depleted GSH levels. There is a big difference between increasing the baseline level and restoring depleted of a substance.


 * Second issue is that the result obtained in the source is routine and unexceptional. Does it have to be mentioned at all in a popular encyclopedia? What does distinguish this result from another 3100 articles on resveratrol indexed in PubMed?


 * Third issue is that the reference is irrelevant to the topic of the chapter - Mechanisms of action of resveratrol? What action in humans/animals does this experiment explain? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol - a cure for cardiac fibrosis
"Research at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine and Ohio State University indicates that resveratrol has direct inhibitory action on cardiac fibroblasts, and may inhibit the progression of cardiac fibrosis. "


 * The above sentence is overly optimistic; its second half may inhibit the progression of cardiac fibrosis is WP:OR. The authors of the source were careful not to express such unfounded optimism. The most they say in the article is RES provides protection against excessive CF activity, which has implications for limiting aberrant remodeling and fibrosis in the myocardium. Please note how they say it: has implications for limiting NOT "may inhibit the progression". I suggest rephrasing this to be closer to the source. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol - a cure for Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases?
The following sentence contains original research (WP:OR) and misrepresentation of references

"Resveratrol was reported effective against neuronal cell dysfunction and cell death, and in theory could help against diseases such as Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease. Again, this has not yet been tested in humans for any disease."


 * That resveratrol could help against Huntington's is OR, since neither of the references mentions it.


 * The first reference only states that resveratrol rescued mutant polyglutamine-specific cell death in neuronal cells derived from HdhQ111 knock-in mice. It does not report resveratrol to be "effective against neuronal cell dysfunction and cell death."


 * The second reference states These findings demonstrate a proteasome-dependent anti-amyloidogenic activity of resveratrol and suggest that this natural compound has a therapeutic potential in Alzheimer's disease. Again, no "cell dysfunction" and "cell death" are mentioned.


 * I suggest re-phrasing the paragraph based on what the second reference states, for example, like this: In cell cultures resveratrol lowers the level of amyloid-beta protein and, thus, may have a therapeutic potential in Alzheimer's disease. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol Supplements
It seems to me that the separate article Resveratrol Lozenges should in fact just be a section within this article, but I'm going to leave that up to other editors more familiar with the topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol Lozenges, or other supplements require verifiability, when talking about it's purpose or in this case bioavailability claims. You cannot say it has higher Bioavailability when there is no study that verifies this. It may be a supplement, however just like we don't see Resveratrol gum, resveratrol capsules here and the like, why decide to add this and provide this to be an exception? (Mabidex (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Dear Mabidex,I am glad that you have removed ethanol dissolved resveratrol and micronized resveratrol from the supplement part of the article. But I wouldn't remove resveratrol lozenges because of that. It is well known that intraoral administration overcomes first-pass effect, which is mainly responsible for the low bioavailability of resveratrol. Currently Resveratrol gums are not available on the market. If/when they become available, I wouldn’t object to include them in the article. Wikipedia is a place where people seek useful information. I wouldn’t try to limit what people should see in Wikipedia (authoritarian governments do that and I am sure you don’t support it). By the way, let’s leave all of our discussions here. There is no need to delete them.--Pushroll (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you are discussing this. It is up to the person who adds or restores the material to provide a source per WP:BURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears we have a person that cannot provide a source of verification for the claims. Pushroll, I will take this whole section on 'lozenges' out, as it does not belong here without any supporting source that can be verified. This is not a discussion, it is a rule when posting here at wikipedia. (Mabidex (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * He's created a pov-fork at Resveratrol Lozenges. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, it appears he will not listen (Mabidex (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Again, it is well known that intraoral administration overcomes first-pass effect (for more information, see Sublingual administration), which is mainly responsible for the low bioavailability of resveratrol. Do you guys understand the principle? --Pushroll (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is up to the person who adds or restores the material to provide a source per WP:BURDEN" --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The two terms "Sublingual administration" and "first-pass effect" are enough to make everything clear. I really doubt whether or not you understand the two terms. Please forgive me if I were wrong.--Pushroll (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to WP:BURDEN, see WP:SYN and WP:IDHT. --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Attributions Made About David Sinclair
This article mistakenly attributes discovery of resveratrol to David Sinclair. Resveratrol was discovered around 1940, long before Sinclair was born. He was one of the first to discover the anti-aging effects, but not the molecule itself. Come on folks, let's get our facts straight!! 207.180.128.8 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) DFWatt, Ph.D. HMS

Diabetes
Are their any reviews available on research into diabetes? I've moved the following from the article for discussion here as gives undue weight to two studies, without mention of any other research in the area.

"Palsamy and Subramanian have recently published articles on the antihyperglycemic potential of resveratrol in experimental diabetic rats. In their study, the oral administration of resveratrol (5 mg/kg b.w) to streptozotocin-nicotinamide-induced experimental diabetic rats for 30 days significantly normalizes the levels of blood glucose, plasma insulin, glycosylated hemoglobin, AST, ALP, ALT, and modulates the altered activities of carbohydrate metabolizing enzymes in the liver and kidney tissues of diabetic rats. The results thus obtained showed the antidiabetic property of resveratrol in experimental diabetes."

--Ronz (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are not enough clinical trials to draw a conclusion about effects of resveratrol on diabetes in humans. --Nevit (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede
Some introduction is needed in the lede to give context to the summary of effects. I searched around, but didn't find anything very promising. I did add two items to External links that might be worth incorporating as refs, both from a WSJ Health Blog article. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lethal dose / toxicity ?
Are there any studies regarding this safety aspect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism and Objective Data Analysis and Presentation
Let's be honest, folks. As much as we would love to find a vast array of general health and/or life extension benefits in resveratrol, there is currently no accepted scientific evidence to support this train of wishful thinking. Keeping this in mind, this article should reflect resveratrol in an objective and skeptical way, in line with how science is conducted. Therefore, I have made a few brief edits to this article:

[Most of these results have yet to be replicated in humans.] I have replaced the bracketed sentence with: "These results have yet to be replicated in humans."

"Despite mainstream press alleging resveratrol's anti-aging effects,[3] there is [little present scientific basis for the application of these claims to mammals] (see Life-Extension section below)." I have replaced the bracketed information with: "...no accepted data to form a scientific basis for the application of these claims to mammals..."

To further prevent misinformation, which could lead to adverse effects in readers who decide to act upon the information found in this article, I included the following in the second paragraph for clarification and visibility purposes, "There are also a number of potential dangers posed by resveratrol [4] [5] (see sections: Adverse Effects and Unknowns and Possible Carcinogenicity)."

MichaelKovich (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

[While the health benefits of resveratrol seem promising,...] I have removed this part of the sentence, since nothing about resveratrol seems promising. See my comments above.

MichaelKovich (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Adverse effects
I just checked this page because I saw a favorable but cautious reference to resveratrol in a review article on sirtuins in the NEJM.

I don't like to see claims that go beyond the evidence, particularly when they're based on speculation and promoted by people who are trying to sell a product. OTOH, I don't see the documented justification for the claims of "potential dangers," Adverse Effects and Unknowns and Possible Carcinogenicity. The dangers seem to be speculative as well. --Nbauman (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

nanotech / molecular wire?
Shouldn't this stuff function as a very short segment (almost a monomer) of a conductive polymer to some degree, for charge transfer due to its chemical resonance?

Because it has hydroxyl at either end, and is hydrophobic in the middle. it strikes me that this compound may aid in reducing voltage drop across a cellular membrane in any cell containing compounds that may bind with these hydroxyls electrically; this may be one of many ways the compound has an anticancer effect in some - by stimulating apoptosis in cells containing reactive carcinogen compounds, while not being very useful at all in situations where this was unhelpful or even slightly harmful. Zaphraud (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in Testosterone setting
The Korean study referenced in the testosterone section used mice, not men, as currently reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.200.22 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Retracting Das's paper
Looks like most of Dipak K. Das's research (citation 61) has been fabricated. (See Das's wiki page.) Seems like we should remove the citation to his work?

Dean p foster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC).


 * If the paper from Das that is cited in this article is specifically named as one that contains fabricated data, it should be removed. But at this stage, I don't think specific publications have been identified or retracted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think that all his work is tainted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.238.118 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's too early to tell. It wouldn't surprise me if his early work was solid, but then something changed and his subsequent work (which appears to be what is in question) became shoddy.  Wikipedia should wait and see:  clearly if any of his publications are retracted, Wikipedia should not use it as a reference; but if some of his work stands up to the current scientific scrutiny, Wikipedia should consider it reliable. 108.16.32.13 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only should his work not be used, but it should still be mentioned and the documentation and publicity about his fraudulent research should be included in the article. The article is about everything related to the subject, including controversies and fraud. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's safer to cite others than Das until other labs repeat suspect experiments. If you want to update the page there are many other cardiovascular researchers with better reputations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.172.146 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When a widely cited study gets erroneous results, there is a well established phenomena of bias and publication bias.  Given the set-backs of age-extension research, Resveratrol is on very shaky grounds and the article should reflect this Indolering (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential references
Moved from "Further reading" --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Plaque and Alzheimer's
"resveratrol significantly reduced plaque formation in animal brains, a critical part of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases"

This statement is misleading - the idea that plaque formation is "a critical part of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases" is not well supported and all drugs targeting this hypothetical mechanism have failed clinical trials.

See wiki page on biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease, specifically the tau hypothesis and amyloid hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer%27s_disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.255.225 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)