Talk:Salvestrol

Trademark
I think it's worth mentioning that Salvestrol is a trademark - partly because it makes it clear this is not some kind of neutral/standard classification, and because the trademark aspect is covered by one of our secondary sources (here courtesy of WP:PARITY), the Quackometer blog. I've restored mention of this to the opening sentence (it was there for a couple of months until the recent flurry of edits). Alexbrn talk 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this article doesn't give the reader a complete picture and the positive outcomes in the way our diet protects us from toxins. This article is too brief in my opinion. Logan Shaun Naidoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.12.9 (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is SRT-501 cited in the salvestrols article?
[This discussion is being transferred to the Salvestrol Talk page at Alexbrn's request MQMagoo (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)]

Please explain to me why you put all of that SRT-501 stuff into the article about salvestrols. That stuff is all totally irrelevant. Do you not know the difference between CYP1B1 and SRT-501? Obviously, the person who originally put all of the SRT-501 stuff into the article had no idea what he/she was doing. That stuff is totally irrelevant! MQMagoo (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Also be aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, please explain to me why you put all of that SRT-501 stuff into the article about salvestrols. MQMagoo (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably because it's a "resveratrol-based pharmaceutical". These substances are hawked as alternative anti-cancer medicines so per WP:PSCI it's good that the mainstream context is given. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you putting statements into the article based on a "Presumably"? Why is "Dipak K. Das" cited? He has never done any research about the interaction of CYP1B1 with any of the approximately 50 salvestrols. That citation is totally irrelevant. MQMagoo (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The statements that Philip Broadwith made during the cited podcast do not have any relevance to an article about salvestrols. If you want to put a reference to that podcast into the article about resveratrol you can do that. MQMagoo (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm British - by "presumably" I meant "obviously". You're now edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I listened to the entire Broadwith interview and he did not use the word "salvestrol" and he did not speak about CYP1B1. That podcast does not belong in an article about salvestrols.  You should recognize that around 50 salvestrols have been discovered and all salvestrols are metabolized by CYP1B1. SRT-501 has nothing to do with salvestrols so stop putting SRT-501 stuff into the article about salvestrols. MQMagoo (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All these acronyms you keep harping on do not occur in the article. We write for the general reader. Since salvestrols are "resveratrol-based pharmaceutical" they are relevant here and we need to call out the quackery per WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article about Sirtris Pharmaceuticals says "The company was specifically focused on resveratrol formulations and derivatives as activators of the SIRT1 enzyme…" The drug that they named "SRT-501" may be a resveratrol formulation or derivative but that does not make it a salvestrol. All salvestrols are naturally occurring phytoalexins. SRT-501 is not a phytoalexin.  SRT-501 does not interact with the human enzyme CYP1B1. SRT-501 is not a salvestrol!


 * The BBC article about salvestrols mentions "Salvestrol Q40", which is one of the 50 or so salvestrols. Salvestrol Q40 is a naturally occurring phytoalexin. "It is converted into a toxic compound by the P450 CYP1B1 enzyme, found in much higher levels in cancer cells". Salvestrol Q40 is not derived from reserveratrol. Resveratrol is only one of the 50 or so salvestrols. Resveratrol is not included in salvestrol-based dietary supplements because at "high" doses it inhibits the expression of CYP1B1 and that inhibition makes resveratrol and Salvestrol Q40 and all of the other salvestrols totally ineffective. Salvestrols cannot become effective unless they can interact with CYP1B1.


 * Salvestrol Q40 is not a derivative of resveratrol. Salvestrol Q40 is one of approximately 50 naturally occuring phytoalexins. The "Salvestrol" article is not about resveratrol formulations and derivatives".


 * You have asserted that "salvestrols are 'resveratrol-based pharmaceutical'". Your assertion is not true. And Salvestrol Q40 has not been reported to activate the SIRT1 enzyme. You should stop putting SRT-501 stuff into the article. MQMagoo (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)