Talk:Rutin

Gluten
Shouldn't "It is gluten free" be removed? Because it is a chemical substance, with the formula given, this should be clear enough. Otherwise, we can add this sentence to many many other articles - with no significant use.

Chemical structure
I have a book of ecological biochemistry in front of me, and certainly shows a completely different chemical structure of rutin. Are u sure this is correct? Googling it will also prove this. thx

Ambiguous Statement
In humans, it attaches to the iron ion Fe2+, preventing it from binding to hydrogen peroxide and creating a highly reactive free radical that may damage cells.

(I'm not a chemist) Does this mean that rutin binding with the iron ion creates a highly reactive free radical, or that it prevents the formation of a free radical?

In the first case, it might better be stated:

In humans, it attaches to the iron ion Fe2+, preventing it from binding to hydrogen peroxide, thereby creating a highly reactive free radical that may damage cells.

In the second case, it might better be stated:

In humans, it attaches to the iron ion Fe2+, preventing it from binding to hydrogen peroxide, which would otherwise create a highly reactive free radical that may damage cells.

Is the entry a piece of covert product placement or advertisment for the said Californian drink?

Systematic name
I believe the numbering of the hydroxyl groups on the chromene are wrong (should be 5,7-dixydroxy). Also the numbering of the ketone group is wrong (should be "-4-one"). Do people agree? --Kupirijo 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Amounts in food plants
Has anybody got any figures like the Quercetin article of actual amounts in for plants (mg/kg)? 78.151.207.130 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox too long
Can the IUPAC name be split? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref re aronia berries
Can somebody add the ref please as I am unsure how to do it?

http://www.uctm.edu/bg/j2009-2/15_Maria_Atanasova_201-203.pdf

80.42.155.255 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong parameters
Solubility in Water is totally wrong - probably just the first search engine hit was taken (which is not a reliable source...)

Krewson, C. F. and Naghski, J. (1952), Some physical properties of rutin. J. Pharm. Sci., 41: 582–587. doi: 10.1002/jps.3030411106 It's 0,013g/100cc - which is more like it - so it's probably an error in decimal places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.59.119 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article stated 12.5 g/100 mL, but the Merck Index says 1 g/8 L, which is 12.5 mg/100 mL. So you're right, it looks like a typo where "g" should have been "mg".  This gives a value close to the one you report.  I have added both values to the article.  Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

hydroxyethylrutosides
"hydroxyethyl acetylations" does not seem to make sense. 69.72.92.183 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Failing MEDRS
please review over the guidelines on this, but I think my edits are reasonable removal of content that either making overly broad claims. Also, animal studies are typically frowned upon which is a large portion of the content I have removed. Medical relating articles (or articles making medical related claims) have much higher rigor of sources then regular wikipedia articles.

Edit revision here, CC: User:Jytdog.

Shaded0 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * responding to the ping - yes, it is not hard to find reviews - I added the review-finder header at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It was grossly incompetent to remove content containing one or more review references. I know that noobs can be incompetent, but this goes to show that even users like Jytdog have an agenda. MEDRS incompatible content may be removed carefully and selectively only. There is no prohibition against reviews based on animal studies. The clams made in the article based on such reviews can be clarified to indicate that they're based on animal studies. Don't make up rules as you go. "Frowned upon" is a useless phrase and it has no place here. Numerous personal freedoms were once frowned upon, so what. --Acyclic (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Please keep content in the section about "role as ligand" about its role as a ligand. I will post at WT:MED to keep more eyes on this page. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm content with the current version of the article. --Acyclic (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. Please stop wasting our time edit warring crappy content about health into WP based on primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean you or Zefr get a free pass for removing legitimate content. You don't. I'll take you to WP:AN the next time I see you do it again. --Acyclic (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * note the strict guidelines on sources for WP:MEDRS again. Many of the claims also that you have made on Zinc L-carnosine are similarly overly-broad and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Looping User:Doc_James to see if he has time to give a more in-depth explanation on this or look at this. Shaded0 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Research section
This study on mice below is too preliminary to be in the article, WP:MEDANIMAL. There are preliminary clinical studies in the Research section now, and others like PMID 23728661 in humans, albeit the studies are weak and inconclusive, that could be used, if necessary. The low bioavailability of rutin makes it unlikely to become anything more than a research material. --Zefr (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed for discussion: In mouse brain tissue, rutin appears to upregulate CB1 receptors, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α coactivator (PGC-1α) and sirtuin 1 (SIRT1).

Metabolism section
Zefr, please consider keeping the information about CYPs. The information is from articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, and there is a scientific consensus of at least two different groups of authors. Maybe we leave this information, providing that we have emphasized that these studies are in vitro? This in vitro information is better than nothing. What do you think? In the link to the “Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology”. It gives one of the following reasons: ''“Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted, nor are they labelled in any way. They just sit there, ignored.”'' However, the articles I have given as a source are most recent, and the consensus is emerging in the other sources that Rutin is somehow involved in P450 (CYPs) enzyme metabolism. May I ask a third opinion? - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such content is highly speculative, likely non-replicable, and irrelevant to the in vivo or human condition. It is unencyclopedic to mention such content; see here. Wikipedia is not a thesis or journal article where speculation may be acceptable to provide background, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I saw that "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. [...] Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Academic language in the text should be explained in lay terms."

Since it is hard to explain the term in vitro in lay terms and that it may be unreliable, better to not publish it until we have in vivo studies published. Those who need to find whether rutin affects CYPs and CYPs are involved in rutin metabolism, can find the information at pubmed. - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is better than unreliable. Have we no WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! See my comment above (that has the same time as this one) - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me just paste that edit here (for possible further reference)

In silico metabolic pathway analysis predicted that rutin is metabolized by CYP1A2 and CYP2C9.

In vitro studies revealed that rutin is a moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor in humans and inducer in rats.

- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)