Talk:Superoxide dismutase

Delivery systems
I am removing that part about delivery systems. Reeks of advertisement and unproven claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.36.244 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Vague statement
Removed because it's too vague:
 * the existence of a motor neuron disease in individuals who have point mutations in SOD and by the finding that the absence of SOD may lead to a form of anemia.

--Quarterduck 02:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SOD mutations in disease
This statement is unreferenced: "Mutations in SOD1 can cause familial ALS, by a mechanism that is presently not understood, but not due to loss of enzymatic activity or a decrease in the conformational stability of the SOD1 protein." Anyone wish to clarify to what this is referring?173.8.220.209 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
Can anyone clarify this statement in the first paragraph?


 * One of the exceedingly rare exceptions is Lactobacillus plantarum and related lactobacilli.

Is this supposed to mean that L. plantarum doesn't use SOD specifically for antioxidant defense, or doesn't use SOD at all?

--Scienthomas 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Lactobacillus plantarum entry SOD is not present in that genus.
 * apers0n 10:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have restated that sentence for clarification. Dcrjsr (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a glitch in the introductory section: "For the E. coli Fe-SOD: . Fe-SOD can be found in the plastids of plants."

To the best of my knowledge E. coli do not have plastids. Therefore, to make sense it should be reformulated as: "For the E. coli Fe-SOD: Fe-SOD can be found in the cytosol [1] or in the extracellular matrix [2]. In plants: Fe-SOD can be found in the plastids" For celular localization of SOD please see the entries in Brenda database [3], searching for EC 1.15.1.1 (superoxide dismutase) and selecting the organism you are interested in.

1. Beyer W, Imlay J, Fridovich I., Superoxide dismutases in Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1991;40:221-53. 2. Munkres KD.,Purification of exocellular superoxide dismutases, in Methods Enzymol. 1990;186:249-60. 3.Brenda: The Comprehensive Enzyme Information System, http://www.brenda-enzymes.org/index.php4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.53.164 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For better serving non-technical readers, I have changed "plastids" to "chloroplasts", for plant occurrence. Dcrjsr (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page requires reorganising
(Using Firefox to view page) The image above the text "Structure of the active site of human superoxide dismutase 2" is covering part of the page's main text. The Image should be moved. This may be a problem specific to Firefox. Cs1kh 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) amir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.184.80 (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting and boxes
With all due respect, I placed Pfam boxes to section "Types" where they belong. And do we really need protein boxes here when we have separate articles about individual proteins, clearly linked from this article. That's a content fork, classic. Saying that, I am not going to revert anything. But it does include an excessive number of boxes. Something must be removed.Biophys (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I now see that you did place the Pfam boxes in the "Types" section, but when stacked vertically they do extend into other sections. Also to avoid bunching of section editing links, the infoboxes should ideally be placed next to each other separated by fix bunching templates. Even taking out the infobox protein templates, this is awkward because of the number of remaining infoboxes and graphics.  A cleaner solution is to pivot the infoboxes so that they are displayed horizontally. This ensures that no mater what the window width or font size that is displayed, the infoboxes will all ways displayed next to the corresponding text.  Furthermore, placing infobox protein that are an abbreviated version of the GNF Protein box is not a content fork but rather a summary of what is contained in the isozyme specific articles.  Finally, considering the length of the text in the article, I do not think there is an excessive number of infoboxes. Boghog (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaningful
Cindy Crawford's widely advertised "meaningful beauty" skin regimine claims' that SOD via a south of France melon extract does benefit one to remain youthful looking and that this is all proven, e.g. now with her use for 15 years remaining looking 30 vs 45 age. Can you add this info if accurate ? ref http://www.meaningfulbeauty.com/ /s flowa o scotland le jeune jr, camp le 69.121.221.97 (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless
I fail to see how an unproven commercial statement for a cosmetic product would enhance the article. Therefore, I would strongly oppose such a statement. &#32;RGK (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Varius text/syntax edits
Run thru with several text and syntax edits, plus well-cited new material. Made a separate section on pharmacological uses of SOD and SOD-mimetics. There is also a whole separate area of SOD-mimetic agents as drugs that should be considered in more detail. BTW, years ago,  I put in the stuff about pharmacological uses of SOD. But over the years the usual suspects seem to have deleted it. Arrrg... Bigbuck (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Experimental colitis ?
The second sentence of the section: Pharmacological activity, read: "For example, SOD is highly effective in treatment of colonic inflammation in experimental colitis." The syntax needed editing and as I know of now such thing as "experimental colitis" and as there is no reference to it on the colitis page associated with the phrase I have edited it to:

"For example, SOD is a highly effective experimental treatment of colonic inflammation in colitis." and added the request thereon for a citation. fwiw I know what you mean about "the usual suspects", those self-appointed traffic wardens of the information superhighway. LookingGlass (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable Limitation to Subject Matter
SOD is a critical enzyme to all aerobic organisms, and free radical biology and medicine, while arguably the most important subject matter in biology, is very broad, too broad to support specific uses of SOD in experimental medicine. An article on colitis might be more appropriate, although I would reserve that statement to a specific example after reviewing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Improved References Needed
The following opening statement is taken from the abstract to the paper "Antifibrotic action of Cu/Zn SOD is mediated by TGF-beta1 repression and phenotypic reversion of myofibroblasts" by Vozenin-Brotons, Sivan V, Gault N, Renard C, Geffrotin C, Delanian S, Lefaix JL, Martin M: Skin fibrosis is characterized by the proliferation and accumulation of activated fibroblasts called myofibroblasts It appear to indicate that the statement in this article here that:  "Superoxide dismutase is known to reverse fibrosis, perhaps through reversion of myofibroblasts back to fibroblasts" and claimed to sourced from the magazine Free Radical Biology & Medicine, is incorrect by definition. I have therefore requested that the citation be improved. Elsewhere on wiki, where it is stated that:  "fibrablasts and fibrocytes are two states of the same cells, the former being the activated state, the latter the less active state... Currently, there is a tendency to call both forms fibroblasts." I assume that in the first paper the term: "activated fibroplasts" is used merely to emphasise the fact that it is actually fibroplasts that define fibrosis rather than fibrocytes, however the quote in the article here still seems wrong, again as stated elsewhere on wiki, as: "myofibroblasts are defined as "between a fibroblast and a smooth muscle cell in differentiation."  It would seem to follow from definition therefore that changing from myofibroblast back to a fibroplast would be to create fibrosis rather than to reverse it.  Can anyone clarify?  LookingGlass (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SOD Induction
I wish to propose a new section to consolidate and summarize current peer review journal articles on the use of phytochemicals, specifically polyphenols,(or even drug candidates) but not limited to those compounds, that are documented agents used for the induction and upregulation of mnSOD, SOD1, and SOD3. Mostly, I've been following the work Brock University, (Dr. Jeffrey A. Stuart, Ellen Robb et.al) which documents SOD2 induction via ER-beta using genistein, daidzein, trans-resveratrol, and other phytoestrogens; and I'm interested in collaborating with a group to review the literature to clarify the role of induction of SOD via NRF2/Keap1; as well as clarify and establish consensus regardings studies indicating SOD may be upregulated via the Sirtuins. However, the role of dietary polyphenols and other dietary compounds shown to induce and upregulate SOD may misplaced in an article which tackles plenty in just describing the enzymes themselves. Thus, first, I'd be interested in opinions regarding my proposal to expand this particular article to include SOD induction. &#32;RGK (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My off-the-cuff reaction is that this sounds quite worthwhile, but might work best as a separate article, referred to and with a couple of sentences to explain it, in the main SOD article. I can't easily help with it, tho, since it's not the end I know much about, and I seem to have fallen behind on everything at present. Dcrjsr (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does "cytocuprein" redirect here?
Not used or explained in article. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Now added to erythrocuprein, as one of the previous names for SOD when its function was unknown. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the comprehensibility
I agree completely that the previous versions lacked explanations understandable to a non-technical reader, in spite of having a laudably thorough and interesting coverage of the subject in general. I have rewritten the first few sections with this in mind, and have replaced more than half the images with purpose-made ones that better illustrate what is said in the text or the caption. (It helps that David Goodsell's Molecule of the Month images have now been made open license.)

I would greatly appreciate feedback from other editors on whether the top complaint box could be removed yet, or whether that could happen only after all the later sections have also been reworked.

grammar is not explicit and is confusing
I was trying to learn more about manganese in superoxide dismutase and I read this, "Manganese – Chicken liver (and nearly all other) mitochondria," and it is not clear if the manganese SD is in the mitochondria of nearly all livers or just all mitochondria, so it needs to be changed to either, "chicken liver and nearly all other liver mitochondria" or just "nearly all mitochondria," or what was actually meant by the statement, because it isn't clear at all. Every time I make an edit some edit god comes along and reverses it, so I am not so sure it is worth my time to figure out how to correct it, but it does need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is mice SOD research applicable to humans?
Is SOD = Superoxide Dismutase significantly more bioavailable for mice, compared to humans?

Could the following research apply to human Maotai liquor consumption?

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2022/5397733/

Title: Superoxide Dismutase Prevents SARS-CoV-2-Induced Plasma Cell Apoptosis and Stabilizes Specific Antibody Induction

Abstract: A portion of mice were treated with Maotai liquor (MTL, in short).

4. Discussion: Published data show that MTL can counterpart oxidative stress in liver cells by increasing SOD production and inhibiting ROS and MDA [6]. MTL also contains SOD (6667 U/100 ml) and manganese (0.022 mg/100 ml); those are important for alleviating the oxidative stress injury

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)