Talk:Taurine/Archive 1

Neurotransmitter
Is it an inhibitory neurotransmitter or a neuroinhibitotorial neurotransmatatatorial transmitter, as stated?

I've never heard of a neuroinhibitory transmitter.

What are the major industrial sources for the production of taurine? (animal / synthesized?) -perhaps algae?

8 Feb 2005: This article is similar to the top part of this web page: http://www.serve.com/BatonRouge/taurine_chmr.htm


 * You should have listed it at WP:CP. I'm copyediting it now. JFW | T@lk  23:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great Article!
What a fabulous article! Surely it's on it's way to being featured! Take good care of this one, I want to see it on the main page some day. Fascinating! Black Lab (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible side-effects
There should be an article about possible side effects of excess taurine intake on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultaccount (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal use
I take taurine regularly when I run. My routine is very regular, and I am very attuned to my body. When running I noticed a significant increase in energy. When I was not running, it also made me feel good mentally. I use it regularly, and believe it is not a stimulant. Why and how could your body make a stimulant? I believe it is in energy drinks because it has some role in metabolization. I read that it is much more effective when used with a stimulant, and glucose - but I cannot verify that myself. It is defintely not from bull semen or bull urin, as bull semen would be more expensive than $20 for 1 kilo, and it would not be excreted in urin. For one thing, you would have to pay the farmer a lot to milk bull penis's all day. Shudder. That article has more of the information I was looking for.

Bull Semen

 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. JFW |  T@lk  23:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude does anyone know if taurine in energy drinks is from animal origin or is synthesized?

I just wanted to know if this "taurine" has anything to do with bull sperm? if u have any answers, just post them on this page... The company says it's not from animal origin.


 * The article both says it's so called because of this, then says that this is an urban legend. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.242.218.72 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Just to correct anyone reading this, animal extracted Taurine is rare if not unheard of in energy drinks and such because it would be costly to procure, and it would offend animal friendly people. It's name comes from being found in bull Bile, as the article states. Bobbias 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ''"Taurine is a type of amino acid that gets its name from the Latin term Taurus which means Bull because it was first located in and extracted from the bile of bulls. It is also found in the human body.

The taurine found in energy drinks is not however a byproduct of bull's testicles, it is a synthetically made substance that is considered to be vegetarian friendly."'' taken from:  www. associatedcontent. com/ article/235157/energy_drinks_made_from_bull_testicles.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.80.93 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how this rumor started. One of my close friends works for Monster, and I have asked him, on multiple occasions, whether taurine is bull sperm. He always laughs and says "Of course not! That would be disgusting. We'd also have PETA and other groups on our asses nonstop if it was!" Many of you will say that he says this because it would be dumb to tell a customer that it's bull sperm and that he should not be trusted. But get it straight- I have never, and most likely will never drink energy drinks. My friend knows this. Look in the article- it is bile, not sperm. Last time I checked, they're not the same thing. And, even if it was, it wouldn't be that gross because our bodies naturally make it. That also refutes the idea of it being bull sperm. I highly doubt that humans naturally produce bull sperm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynebrettsky (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo
Isn't there a typo in this line?

Taurine is not one of the 20 amino acids that the body uses to produce polypetides / proteins.

Shouldn't that be "polypeptide" (with three "p"s)?

Neuronal
Taurine is actually an inhibitory neuromodulator. It is not synthesized or released in the same sense as classical neurotransmitters, though it does have, at high concentrations, an acute inhibitory effect on neurotransmission.

Brown hair
I just reverted an edit which added the following sentence to the article
 * Taurine also has been proven to help you live longer if you have brown hair.

I was unable to locate anything to back this up, searching briefly on google and on pubmed. Anyone have a source? --Hansnesse 23:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the clinical claims on this entry cannot be substantiated by peer-reviewed research. I am in the process of rewriting it--starting with the biosynthetic pathway, which is actually the cysteine sulfinic acid pathway, not cysteic acid.

Taurine and caffeine
Is it really true that with all of the recent popularity of energy drinks, nobody has ever performed a study attempting to prove Taurine enhances or supplements the effects of caffeine? I would understand if no studies ever produced evidence of it, but no studies ever being done is hard for me to believe. -VJ 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one I found. Chacho 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Taurine revisions
Most of the assertions made by this website about the biosynthesis, physiological roles, and pharmacological uses of taurine were erroneous. Substantial revisions are in process. John Dominy

The article states that taurine is the only sulfonic acid in biology. This is not correct as there is also coenzyme M used by methanogens (see Wiki article on Coenzyme M)  J. Seravalli  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.247.82 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an amino acid
I specified more clearly that taurine should not be called an amino acid. The term "amino acid" has come to refer quite specifically to the twenty compounds that are encoded by the genetic code to form proteins. Not all compounds that have both an amine and an acid functional group are to be called amino acids (otherwise a substantial percentage of all biological molecules should be called amino acids!); and conversely not all of the twenty amino acids are amines (the exception being proline).


 * Proline does have an amino functionality. Just because it is a secondary amine which in addition is cyclic does not make it less of an amine...--Xenofonos 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit like carbohydrates, which don't refer to just any substance that is Cn(H20)m.

The idea that taurine is an amino acid is misleading in the sense that it "confirms" the misconception that there are amino acids lacking in plant food.

David Olivier

Is taurine a stimulant?
Currently the article doesn't say anything about whether taurine is a stimulant. Most people (including me) assume that it is, but after a few minutes of research I can't find a clearly reliable source stating so. Anyone want to address this? dbtfz talk 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the stimulant properties of taurine are entirely due to the fact that its presence in a soft drink enables the word "taurine" to be on the label; which in turn evokes images of bulls and virility and energy.David Olivier 11:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

well but on the other hand it is sayed to cause hypotension, indicating that it is a stimulant taghawi-nejad

I have neural damage and I find that the drink and the natural supplement (in moderation and never both at once) help quite nicely with body posture and communication skills, both spoken and not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.13.194 (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cats Requirements
Am I correct in thinking that domestic (and other?) cats need Taurine in their diet; something to do with their eyesight?81.138.89.121 10:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Tony Royston, UK.81.138.89.121 10:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. See the article on cats and what it says about the need to supplement vegetarian diets for cats with taurine. A severe taurine deficiency in cats produces blindness. A moderate deficiency produces heart problems. I take it taurine is also added to commercial non-vegetarian catfood, presumably to compensate the fact that they have a high plant content, and perhaps also that taurine is destroyed by heat (confirmation needed). David Olivier 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * and don't forget that taurine is present in significant quantities in baby formula. Infants are not able to synthesize taurine so it has to come from nutritional sources like breast milk et al. I will add a paragraph as soon as I have more time.--Xenofonos 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The written statement about cats requiring taurine is ill founded, if someone has an Athens login, please login to look at the research papers done and studies carried out which proves otherwise. The area is up for question and many have disputed AAFCO's decision due to lack of evidence as well as background collusion. I don't think an encyclopaedia's is a source for speculation, therefore, the "definitive" tone this article has in regards to taurine being essential for cats needs to be changed to also make people understand there is as much evidence against the so-called need than there is for it. Oh yeah, 20 years ago, all the cats were blind, suddenly, they can start to see again because of taurine. The significant traces of taurine present in some organs of a tiny proportion of animals a wild cat might hunt and eat is incomparable to the suggestion of it being a necessity and the recommended levels. I hope some of you dig deeper through Athens and understand the amount of speculation and uncertainty there exists in regards to taurine and a cats diet. A normal wild cat ingests the same amount of taurine a month a house cat would ingest daily (recommended levels): huge difference. There are also many papers suggesting foods containing taurine are preferred over the same food without the taurine by lab. mice, in other words, suggesting taurine is habit forming or atleast preferable over non-taurine containing diets even when there is no nutritional need or benefits. So if you wonder why your cat gags for the dry fat coated vegetable pills over real meat, there is a reason. It's also stupid for all these energy drink makers to add taurine without no basis as there is no improvement to taste or any other benefits in regards to their cause (energy). --78.86.159.199 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Amino acid contradiction
Taurine is not an amino acid as correctly stated in the first part of the article. In the section on cat food it says that it is an amino acid added to feed. This should be removed. The source it cites (IAMS) is wrong in calling it an amino acid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhupka (talk • contribs)
 * Well, strictly spoken, this is an amino acid, and that is also what is said in the intro .. it is not an amino acid in the classical sense, but a) it is an amine, and b) it is an acid. The term aminoacid has been coined for the 20 aminoacids that are used in the human body, but from an organic chemistry point of view, there are uncountable amino acids.  But you are off course free to rephrase.    --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not just that it isn't one of the "standard" 20. It doesn't have a carboxyl group.  I you're going to call this an amino acid, you'll have to call ATP an amino acid too (it has an amino group, and it has phosphates, which are acids). 72.75.103.211 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the troubles with trivial naming, indeed. But I was 'speaking strictly', the word amino acid does not specify which group is the acid, and the systematic name for taurine is '2-aminoethanesulfonic acid'.  But I can warrant a rephrase, I'll have a look at it later.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither the word "amino" nor the word "acid" implies a carboxyl group, but "amino acid" nonetheless implies a carboxylic acid. This is the definition given, correctly, but the Wikipedia article on amino acid.  You seem to agree that ATP would be an amino acid by the looser meaning that you are suggesting.  I hope you agree that talk of not-yet-discovered tRNAs "charged" with ATP would be silly.  Similar discussion about taurine is silly too. 72.75.103.211 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We are speaking pure semantics here. But I'll rephrase it then.  Cheers anyway.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into a semantic argument, but there is a question of what the article should say. Your reversion/rewrite makes it sound as though taurine really is an amino acid, and as though its not being one of the 20 standard ones is an important part of what disqualifies it.  The statement that but to date there has been no report of a transfer RNA that is specifically charged with taurine is silly.  Like most compounds, taurine could conceivably be attached to the 2' or 3' hydroxyl at the end of a tRNA, but it would look little like a charged tRNA (and presumably the ribosome would be inactive toward it).  Again, I ask you to substitute "ATP" for "taurine" in that introduction and ask whether it belongs in an encyclopedia.  Amino acid says In chemistry, an amino acid is any molecule that contains both amine and carboxylic acid functional groups.  Do we want to seem to contradict that here? 72.75.103.211 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to spend the rest of my life discussing whether we should refer to β-amino sulfonates as amino acids. Really, I don't. But in the interest of fighting ignorance and all, I have to object to even the latest version of the intro.

People do often refer to taurine as an amino acid, even genuine scientists. This may have less to do with the acidic sufonate group than with the fact that taurine is biochemically derived from an amino acid. For comparison, consider tyramine. A google search for +tyramine +"amino acid" will show you tons of pages that assert that tyramine is an amino acid, including pages from seemingly reliable sources, such as the Mayo Clinic. But we all agree that tyramine is not an amino acid, right? (Or will someone point at the sidechain hydroxyl group, with its pKa of ~10, and say that that's the acid?) To those who insist the taurine is an amino acid, despite my repeatedly pointing out all those amino phosphates that we would never call amino acids, I give up and fall back on this: amino acid clearly puts forth a definition of amino acid that does not include taurine, so for the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles taurine is not an amino acid.

The article currently says Although it has been called an amino acid in the literature,[1][2][3] it contains a sulfonic acid group in place of the carboxylic acid group found in most other naturally-ocurring amino acids, so for clarity it may be called a sulfonic amino acid. There are a couple of problems with this. The expression most other naturally-ocurring (sic) amino acids implies that taurine is an amino acid, which it isn't (see above; it is also probably incorrect on its own terms because the amino phosphates, which would have to be counted as amino acids under the broader definition, probably outnumber the genuine amino acids). Also, the sufonic acid group is no more "in place" of the carboxylic acid group of an amino acid than it is "in place" of the phosphate group of an amino phosphate.


 * I agree that the sulfonic acid moiety should not be considered to be "in the place" of the carboxylic acid group found in one of the canonical amino acids, but not for the reason stated. Taurine's sulfonate arises from the sequential oxidation of the sulfhydryl group of cysteine's side chain and thus was never part of an alpha carbon.  The alpha carbon carboxylic acid group of cysteine is lost in the conversion of cysteine sulfinic acid to hypotaurine. -User:JDominy

So, I want to change this, but I wanted to discuss it first. 72.75.73.84 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope this version settles it once and for all. All the references just for this semantic quibble might be getting superfluous, but it's better to be safe than sorry: easier to remove a reference than to dig it up later. BTW, I've been looking for anything mentioning tauring-contaning peptides, but no luck so far. Some of the papers weren't available online though, so it looks like I'll have to physically go into the library. —Keenan Pepper 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. Talk of "textbook amino acid" suggests that taurine really is an amino acid (just not a "textbook" one) and that it is mere pedantry to object to its being called one.  Also, that version did nothing to address my point about the "in place of" language.  I've made changes that address these issues while still acknowledging the widespread claim that it is an amino acid.


 * I'm curious about the peptide claim too. While just about anything could be attached to a peptide, is the claim that taurine's amino group is involved in an amide linkage to one amino acid and it is linked through a sulfonamide to another? 72.75.73.84 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this talk about whether taurine is an amino acid, though admirable for its intellectual merits, is a little unneccessary. As a taurine researcher, I can assure you that everyone who works in the field calls this compound an amino acid (I've begun the introduction of many papers calling it as such) though it is tacitly acknowledged that taurine is not a canonical amino acid on account of it not having an identified codon and specific tRNA synthetase.  Whether taurine gets incorporated into peptides, though is an interestinig subject in its own right.  Peptide bond formation via the sulfonic acid moiety of taurine would be less conducive than the amide bonds formed through the carboxylic acid moieties of other amino acids--hence, peptide extension after the incorporation of taurine would be less favorable and act as a functional dead end for peptide synthesis.  Nevertheless, I have included a reference from an older paper showing that there are indeed taurine dipeptides found in tissues.  All of these, though, contain peptide linkages formed by the conjugation of taurine's amine group with the carboxylic acid group of another amino acid-some with the alpha carboxylic acid others with the side chain carboxylate. How these are synthesized, whether the synthesis is artifactual, and what biological function they could serve are all unanswered questions -User:JDominy


 * Cool, thanks for the reference! —Keenan Pepper 23:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Wikipedia usernames are case-sensitive, so User:JDominy is not you. You're User:Jdominy. —Keenan Pepper 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out repeatedly, it has nothing to do with whether it has a codon or tRNA synthetase. It has everything to do with chemical structure.  Without a doubt, compounds such as ornithine, citrulline, and thyroxine are amino acids, despite not having codons or tRNA synthetases.  They have the type of chemical structure implied by amino acid.  Taurine does not.  Talk of codons and synthetases for taurine is silly because of that chemical structure.  That there occur amides of taurine with amino acids is beside the point.  You call them dipeptides, but you shouldn't, and that forms part of a circular argument.  Lots of things form amides with amino acids; that doesn't make them amino acids. 72.75.93.100 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be more comfortable with this discussion if it were based on specific sources rather than original-research arguments. Does the scientific literature define the word "amino acid" in a sense that includes taurine, or doesn't it?  On balance of the evidence presented so far, I'd say the answer is "it depends": Some scientific literature explicitly calls taurine an amino acid, while other scientific literature defines amino acids in a way that excludes taurine. --Delirium 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that the stuff about taurine not being an amino acid has remained. I understand that it may well appear to be "just a semantic quibble", but it is important because it is linked to emotionaly and ideologically charged issues around proteins. Many common people understand amino acids as what makes up proteins. Just like they understand carbohydrates as what gives us a certain kind of energy. It has little or nothing to do with being made of carbon + n times H20. In the same way, the term "amino acid" has little to do with being both an amine and an acid. If it did, almost all the biological molecules over a certain size would have to be called amino acids. In particular, all peptides would have to be called amino acids (they have a free amino functional group on one end, and a free carboxyl group on the other). Do you want to call all peptides amino acids, pantothenic acid, biotin, folic acid amino acids, and so on? And also, demote proline, since it doesn't have the standard amino group?

Etymology can carry some weight, but not more than that. A pair of glasses allows me to see far, but no one in their right mind would want to call them a "television set" (tele = far, vision = see) for that. The category "television" does not include pairs of glasses. The category "amino acid" does not include taurine.

Despite being found in animal flesh, and not in plants, taurine has very little to do with protein. I am no specialist, but I see that the specialists here have not even been able to find references to its being bound to proteins; not to speak of it being part of the amino acid chain itself. Calling it an amino acid is deeply misleading. Insofar as it is an essential nutrient for certain animals, it should just be called a vitamin.

David Olivier 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review
A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written.
 * Clearly written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Biosynthesis section has no references.
 * For the list of proposed functions, at least one ref would be good.
 * Ref 9 is unformatted.
 * In the animal health section (Pion et al 1988) is not given as a reference in the reference list.

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * The recommended name for cysteine sulfinic acid decarboxylase is Sulfinoalanine decarboxylase (EC 4.1.1.29)
 * What is "nerve blood flow"?
 * Mentioning that taurine is 20-50% of the intracellular amino acid pool would help give significance. ( Nutr. 2006 Jun;136(6 Suppl):1636S-1640S. The sulfur-containing amino acids: an overview. Brosnan JT, Brosnan ME.)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * I don't think it is biased in any way.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
 * It is stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * Sufficient images.

Overall pretty good, if you can deal with the references and fix the points in section 3 then this would make this a comprehensive article. On hold. Please drop me a note on my talk page when you're done. TimVickers 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot argue with the described system for rating the article, I can identify one particular problem that I personally have with it.

The article quotes this: Taurine has also been implicated in a wide array of other physiological phenomena including inhibitory neurotransmission, long-term potentiation in the striatum/hippocampus, membrane stabilization, feedback inhibition of neutrophil/macrophage respiratory bursts, adipose tissue regulation, and calcium homeostasis. The evidence for these claims, when compared against that reported for taurine's role in bile acid synthesis and osmoregulation, is relatively poor.

To which, I can not but respond, "Well. Great." Now, I did well in high school biology, but I have no clear concept of what all this means. Much of the article is like this. I don't propose that this sort of information be removed, as I'm certain that someone with adequate prerequisite knowledge can take this information and put it to some practical application, but it fails with great precision in the task of explaining to me just what the discernable (or at the very least, alleged) effect of the Taurine in my can of Rockstar is on my body.

Simply put, the information makes great reference, but it's way over the head of the probable majority of the energy drink-consuming audience that come here to find out what it's supposed to be doing to them. --VanGarrett 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-- FWIW, I agree completely with the above comment. That paragraph would probably be right at home in a medical journal, but it has no place in an encyclopedia.

Half-complete sentence
"Although it is often called an amino acid, even in scientific literature,"

This is even in the initial paragraph - an incomplete statement that stops abbruptly. Can someone deal with this?

Early sentence: "Although it is often called an amino acid, ...."
The sentence at the end of the intro para which starts "Although it is often called an amino acid, ..." doesn't make sense. Anyone know what it should be? --jazzle 12:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SAFE LIMITS OF TAURINE???
The article claims that above around 28 mgs. of taurine is non-GRAS, but that most energy drinks contain around 1 mg per serving. Lo-carb Monster has 1000 mg per 8 ounce serving. That would make one serving have around 35 times the level generally considered as safe of taurine. Bessieg 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Bessieg

Wondering that here, as Red Bull contains 0.4% Taurine. Peterarmitage 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully, that value is in Parts Per Million, not mgs. That makes a LARGE difference. First, if over 28 mgs of taurine was non-GRAS, I'm pretty sure that these products would be VERY quickly removed. Not only that, but the difference between PPM and mgs is the fact that PPM refers to the concentration within iny givel volume, regardless of the actual volume, whereas mgs is a strictly static number, not scaling by volume, which means that your observation i fundamentally flawed. Bobbias 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "safety limit" paragraph because it was incorrect. 28mg of taurine are perfectly safe and just for future reference: 1mg/kg=1ppm; 1000mg/8oz: to simplify lets say that 8oz=236.6mL=236.6g. That would be more than 4200ppm of taurine. 0.4% (cited above as taurine content in red Bull) equals 4000ppm.--Xenofonos 22:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Taurine Source
New Zealand Pharmaceuticals gets their Taurine from Ox Bile... I would assume this is a pretty standard/cheap source or else they would be using other methods.

http://www.nzp.co.nz/products.php?cid=3&pid=4

69.54.35.30 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Seth Stiebinger

The article says that it is so called because of its extraction from bulls. But then it goes on to say that this is an urban legend. Which is it? --205.242.218.72 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What does it do, though?
I've been wondering what exactly adding Taurine to your diet does to benefit you. I do drink a lot of energy drinks, so I thought I'd come see what Wikipedia had to say. The article is well written, but after reading it I still have no idea what it's good for except to help out cats' eyesight.

Is there an unsafe limit? What are the harmful side effects of having too much? Are there any? My NOS bottle says it contains 2750mg in each bottle (it's the big kind). So that line about "most energy drinks contain 1mg per serving" needs to go.

What does that first paragraph even mean?? This would look great if I were doing a paper, but it's not what I've come to expect from Wikipedia. Arinna 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Arinna


 * Taurine is NOT an upper or a stimulant. It has an inhibitory effect (=soothing) on neurotransmission and that should be mentioned in the article with correct references. As it is now many people believe that it is an upper due to its popularity in energy drinks. MaxPont 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. However, it's included in energy drinks for a good reason. Just look for the studies on taurine affecting neurotransmitter levels. Best regards, --83.24.73.81 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

MegaVita 1666
Removed the following: "A Korean vitamin supplement drink called 'MegaVita 1666' contains 2380mg of taurine in an 8.05 OZ." Google searches for |"MegaVita 1666" and |"Korean vitamin supplement drink" only refer to the Wikipedia entry. Trolleytimes 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just did a recent search and shows that "A Korean vitamin supplement drink called "MegaVita 1666" contains 2380mg of Taurine in an 8.05 oz." --Thebigbearlouis (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Safety Data
''Usage above 28.57 PPM in non-alcoholic beverages is deemed non-GRAS ... A typical energy drink that contains 1000 mg of taurine corresponds to a concentration of about 4.083 ppm''

An energy drink containing 1,000mg of Taurine in 250ml (a typical size) would contain 1/250 or 4,000 ppm of Taurine, not 4. Royhills 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Bull *isn't* named after Taurine
Red Bull is named after the original Red Bull product in Thailand, called "Kratingdaeng" in Thai which translate to "Red Bull." Kratingdaeng is so named not for it's ingredient taurine, but rather it is named according to tradition/popular Thai naming conventions. --AStanhope 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it energy-giving?
is taurine energy-giving? if so, how?--Sonjaaa 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not definitively. At best, some studies have shown that taurine might help to reduce muscle fatigue, so you might argue that having your muscles feel less tired is similar to having more energy, but that's not quite the same thing.   Ark yan  • (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's just another (pseudo-)amino-acid, is all. Almost all of the 'energy' you get from, say, Red Bull comes from the carbs. - A l is o n  ☺ 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's energy "giving", but rather...helps your burn energy, or increase metabolism. My school's cafeteria sells energy drink that contains Taurine.  I eat the same amount of lunch everyday and usually won't be hungry again until 8pm at night.  But if I drink some energy drink (taurine), I would become hungry 3 hours later.  However, the energy drink also contains large dose of vitamin B6, which is also known to give the same function. Lightblade 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it definitely has some effect on CNS. For example - it elevates dopamine levels in nucleus accumbens. --83.24.7.91 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation
I don't know what the abbreviation for Taurine is, but it's definitely not "butts"

Taurine and cats: also ferrets?
I've read somewhere that ferrets also need taurine... perhaps the taurine and cats section should be widened? --Starwed (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"The only naturally occurring sulfonic acid"
The statement "Taurine is the only known naturally occurring sulfonic acid" is simply not true - methanesulfonic acid (MSA aka mesylate) occurs naturally in the evironment along with most alkanesulfonic acids up to C16 in length. Milady (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view
To the user who continues to contend that because he cannot find steroids in his local GNC that they are not considered supplements, please note that the term "bodybuilding supplement" is not limited to what is legal over the counter in the United States. Anabolic steroids are readily available without a prescription in Mexico and Thailand. Because Wikipedia is viewed by a worldwide audience, I've changed the sentence to aviod any bias and cultural perspective gaps. -- Quar te t  17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see! No need to distort my statements, though. When I wrote that if steroids were mere supplements, they would be sold as such, and in the same stores as creatine, whey, or multi-vitamins, I was really being sarcastic! And I didn't know that they could be legally purchased in countries such as Mexico, or Thailand(especially since they are substances prohibited by FIFA, and the I.O.C.). I'll go make a final edit then, and if you think that it harms the article in anyway, do feel free to change it back. The change I propose to make, is the following: «(...) performance enhancing substances, such as creatine and anabolic steroids(...)». Note that the use of the term «performance enhancing substance», doesn't imply that a substance is illegal. After all, creatine itself is a performance enhancing drug/substance! --Werty26262626 (talk), Monday, 9 June 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Probably even better now that it's not just limited to the scope of bodybuilding. (also, since I'm here, being banned by a sporting organization does not make it illegal - see ephedrine.) -- Quar te t  18:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, for a minute there, I thought you were being sarcastic! But then I guess it was ok for me, to go ahead and make that change! The problem I was having with the use of the term «sports supplement» to describe anabolic steroids, was that it somewhat implied that such substances, are relatively safe, when they're really not! I believe the term «performance enhancing substance» allows for a much better understanding of this reality, while at the same time, not making creatine look like some dangerous and «illegal»(it is in some countries) substance. Oh, and about my comment regarding the FIFA and I.O.C. bans: I just meant to say, that the fact that a country allows its average citizen to buy steroids, could possibly make the aforementioned organizations feel very wary about/of the athletes of such a nation, if you know what I mean... --Werty26262626 (talk), Monday, 9 June 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural sulfonic acids
It is incorrect to say, as in the first paragraph, that taurine is the only naturally occurring sulfonic acid, in spite of the reference. Numerous examples of sulfonated adducts exists, which are typically produced in the liver, so that they can be more easily eliminated from the body. One example is shown in Wikipedia, Taurocholic acid. I was loathe to edit this out, due to the reference and it is in the first paragraph, but I think that it should be edited out.proclus (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and have reworded the statement to say "one of the few known naturally occurring sulfonic acids". I have removed the reference that the prior sentence cited.  Here it is for future reference:

-- Ed (Edgar181) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Useless table
The fact that taurine is a common ingredient in many energy drinks and energy foods is good; this does not warrant a table listing every energy drink known to man and its taurine content. This article is about taurine, not energy drinks; it is not an advertisement to inform a consumer which drinks contain the most of it. A see also section with an external link to the table's source can be created if wanted. Shicoco (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked the guidelines. The table is against item number three under WP:DIRECTORY. Shicoco (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Taurine in Bovine Semen
If someone wants to reference the fact that taurine was isolated early on from bovine semen, it might be appreciated to make the distinction between "sperm" - small motile cells - and "semen" - the fluid containing same. Also, it might be nice to understand that bovine semen is not 'mostly' taurine; in fact it is a minor component. The separation of taurine from such biological fluids depends on the insolubility of barium and lead salts of taurine, a chemistry that was known a century ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NReitzel (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Energy drinks
I strongly believe the high presence of taurine in energy drinks should be noted, especially given it's high proportions (1892mg in one 473 mL can of Full Throttle), well above the average daily intake. I don't think this amount can lead to toxicity, but if someone could cite relevant studies regarding the effects of high doses of taurine, that would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This sentence to me is questionable: "Despite being present in many energy foods, taurine has not been proven to be energy-giving." It is my understanding that the use of Taurine in energy drinks is not advertised to be "energy-giving" but rather it is supposed to have a calming effect on the body that counteracts the high levels of caffeine in the energy drinks. Even though the sentence says energy foods, it is listed under the heading of energy drinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dojodan (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Taurine NOAEL
Can someone add this bit in somewhere? Thanks

"Although levels of taurine (and glucuronolactone) in energy drinks can far exceed those found in the rest of the diet, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that exposure to taurine (and glucuronolactone) from regular consumption of energy drinks is not a safety concern (No Observed Adverse Effect Level of taurine = 1,000mg/kg/day)."

Ref: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902328128.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.100.237 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Taurine etymology
Taurine comes from the Greek "ταύρος" before it comes from the newer Latin "taurus" from the Greek version of the word. Could someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolakkiatis (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychotropic side-effects
Over the past 2 months, I've started drinking energy drinks. I'm a peace loving guy but have been experiencing fits of agression for the first time in my life, snapping at little things. I haven't had the time, but I suppose somewhere on the net there might be a link to a research paper explaining/rebutting this effect... Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.48.201 (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC) (PS I can attest to the lowered blood pressure, I also get dizzy every time I get up. Needless to say, I've had it with this substance! No more Taurine for me!)

Jrritability can also be explained by the caffeine which is also contained in energy drinks. 95.118.16.200 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Mammalian synthesis of taurine
The article states that taurine is produced in mammalian testicles, though in the section above it says that it is produced in the pancreas. Searching for "taurine produced in mammalian testicles" turns up the Wikipedia article and articles debunking that the taurine in energy drinks comes from bull's semen. Furthermore, this scientific paper states that taurine is produced in the liver, at least in humans. So it's safe to say that taurine is present in animal semen, but there's no evidence that it is produced in the testicles themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.8.233 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'Diuretic' action?
This article should have additional information on which other non-human animals lack taurine synthesis capability, as well as the genetic change which caused this loss of function. It should have information on the synthetic pathway itself, too.

I find it strange and unfortunate that this page is locked, as it's a relatively obscure, nontoxic, naturally produced molecule. So much for my contribution. 69.238.171.49 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

'Diuretic' action?
I cannot comment whether taurine indeed acts pharmacologically as a diuretic or not, but the reason given for this comment sounds irrelevant to me. Diuretics deal with 'diuresis', i.e. they adjust the extent to which electrolytes are excreted or reabsorbed between serum and urine within the kidney (at various sites, depending on the particular diuretic). Diuresis has nothing to do with cell homeostasis of electrolytes in general. Tpapastylianou (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Amino acid"
Amino acids have a carboxyl group by definition; taurine, lacking one, is not an amino acid. Someone please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.142.13 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I did not see your post. However, you are complete right, and I just fixed the article. By the way, you're quite welcome to fix such mistakes yourself in the future. As you probably know, everyone can edit Wikipedia. -- Shinryuu (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the article in question is protected, and as you can see, Taurine is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.142.13 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point ;-) This has to be a recent change though, as it wasn't two weeks ago iirc. -- Shinryuu (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Taurine is NOT an amino acid
Amino acids are defined as organic acids with an amino group (-NH2) and a carboxy group (-COOH) attached to a chain of carbon atoms of varying length. A look a the structural formula of taurine shows that this is clearly not the case: The hydroxy group (-OH) as well as the doubly bonded oxygen are attached to a sulfur atom and not to a carbon atom. Hence, it does not contain a carboxy group. Although taurine is often wrongly considered an amino acid, the scientific answer is that it's not. I changed the article accordingly. -- Shinryuu (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know a reference for why taurine is "generally considered" an amino acid, even though it doesn't meet the formal definition of having an -NH group and a -COOH group? For that matter, it looks like it almost meets the definition, except that the -COOH group has a sulfur instead of a carbon atom - perhaps making it some kind of an -SO2OH, or -SOOH-R group.  I don't know if organic chem specifically defines such a type of sulfur group though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected status
Could someone explain why this article is indefinitely semi-protected? It doesn't seem like a contentious article, or one that would be subject to heavy vandalism. I was just curious and thought it should be explained as a matter of record on the talk page here. Ikefox (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because of all the editors who wanted to insert the "fact" that taurine is, or comes from, bull sperm/semen. See the revision history here. Unless everyone in the world has grown up, we'll likely see the same problems if we unprotect it. Franamax (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Has it been considered to add a "myths" section, mentioning the bull jizz thing, but correcting it? It might be as effective as protecting it. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error
At the top of the page, in the introduction part, there is a spelling error. In the 5th sentence, it says "Turine" instead of "Taurine". The page is protected, so I can not edit it myself. --Okdewit 11:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for catching that and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is taurine widely regarded as a neurotransmitter?
I'm asking because of a discussion on Swedish Wikipedia. --Carl von Blixen (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see -- Quar te t  14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Quartet. That article showed up in the Swedish discussion. In 2009 (published in 2010) it argues that taurine should be considered a neurotransmitter because it "has fulfilled most if not all of the criteria to be accepted as a neurotransmitter in the mammalian CNS". Is that enough to consider taurine widely regarded as a neurotransmitter? For some reason I feel a bit hesitant. It might also be worth noting that the criteria used in the article are described like this on Neurotransmitters: "According to the prevailing beliefs of the 1960s, a chemical can be classified as a neurotransmitter if it meets the following conditions: (the conditions) Modern advances in pharmacology, genetics, and chemical neuroanatomy have greatly reduced the importance of these rules." --Carl von Blixen (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that the average person will simply do a Google search if they're confused about what's in a Wikipedia article. There are about 220,000 pages that come up when you search for "Taurine" and "Neurotransmitter". Yes we're an encyclopedia, but we need to be concise - either it's a neurotransmitter (with sources) or it's not (with sources). You could put something like "Although taurine has been classified as a hypothalamic neurotransmitter or neuromodulator in the mammalian CNS by some scientists using (the conditions), modern advances in pharmacology, genetics, and chemical neuroanatomy have put into question it's classification as a neurotransmitter because (reason)." Hope that makes sense. -- Quar te t  00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar
In this section Nutritional significance Despite being present in many energy drinks and dietary supplements, and being a required nutrient for some animals, taurine has not been shown to beneficial in human nutrition.

I suggest adding the word "be" before the word beneficial, in this example : "....taurine has not been shown to **BE**beneficial in human nutrition.

I could not make this edit, as i am not registered, and this is a semi-protected article.

To whomever makes the edit, thank you for improving the article and fluidity of the sentence :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.176.21 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The PMID of 18951478 should be added to the Leon et al. (reference 32, search for "glutamate excitotoxicity" in Physiological Functions). PM also says the publication date is 2009, not 2008 (at least in J Neurosci Res - there might be another publication of the same basic article in 2009)


 * I'm sorry, but what's the source that shows it's not beneficial in human nutrition? Studies on humans that show benefits in humans - just off the top of my head:


 * Kohashi, N., Katori, R. Decrease of urinary taurine in essential hypertension. Prog. Clin. Bio. Med. 1983. 125, 73.
 * Fujita, T. Ando, K., Noda, H., Ito, Y., Sato. Y. Effects of increased adreomedullary activity and taurine in young patients with borderline hypertension. Circulation. 1987. 75, 525.


 * Obviously the statement is incorrect, and I've removed it. -- Quar te t  23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Content Request: Use in energy drink naming
Is this how red bull got the bull in Red Bull?

2601:84:C701:411E:748C:4C02:AB9F:E0FB (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Content Request: Use in energy drinks
Why is taurine included in energy drinks? This has got to be a common reason for visits to this page. Is there any scientific data on this? If not, there should at least be a summary of current thought on the matter, perhaps a quote from an industry expert who says "in our experience, blah blah". This article should have a new section for this topic. Can a subject matter expert help? __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taurine concentration decreases in all skeletal muscles after exercise. The thought is that taurine enhances structural contractile capabilities in the muscle itself and high muscle concentrations of taurine aid high performance athletes. -- Quar te t  23:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can say you only one thing: It works! Probably, not for a long time, not with a large amount, but one bottle of energy drink with taurine can bring you much lighter than even coffee. Moreover, there is thousands of articles that saying that coffee - is evil, it works too hard for brain, and even more, zombies were making with coffee if you want to believe old tales from africa. Probably, we will meet more and more similar articles for taurine in the future, but for just now - this is a best way to move your cheerfulness from 18:00 to 22:00 just with one bottle 0.5. Who knows, is it much safer for health than coffee, please append. However, right now I'm drinking coffee after 2 hours of taurine, and plus I'm pretty drunk with 4L Guinness, now behind me another one 2L of Guinness, and coffee must safe me against it. Lastly, taurine given me a power to make this jerk and I'm pretty clear to write this shit, but engrish not is my native language. Cheers! 213.59.138.182 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Infant formulas
I believe that the following sentence (under Other Uses) is somewhat misleading regarding the content of the cited reference:


 * However, this practice [taurine supplementation of infant formula] has never been rigorously studied, and as such it has yet to be proven to be necessary, or even beneficial

The reference supports taurine supplementation. It presents evidence of beneficial effects of such supplementation, and no evidence of any detrimental effect. The only negative comment was that there had been only one randomized trial of this practice, and it was questionable that there would be others due to ethical concerns. The reason there are ethical concerns is that taurine is considered to be beneficial, and denial of taurine to infants even for research is probably detrimental, hence may be unethical.

Good reference, but the statement needs to be modified, perhaps to something like the following:

However, despite some evidence of benefits from taurine supplementation, recent recommendations for the content of full-term infant formulas do not specify a minimum level of taurine, due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. --Btcva (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this but the article says the EFSA found no adverse effects for 1000mg of taurine per kg of body weight per day. Am I to assume that a normal person say 100kg can drink 100 energy drinks a day? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.166.130 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you draw that correlation. Energy drinks and taurine are not the same thing. Energy drinks contain caffeine, b-vitamins and other ingredients aside from taurine that would obviously prohibit the ingestion of 100 of them a day.-- Quar te t  14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lowers blood pressure ref
Rather than trying to find a reference for the article's sentence, "There is also evidence that taurine is beneficial for adult human blood pressure and possibly, the alleviation of other cardiovascular ailments (in humans suffering essential hypertension, taurine supplementation resulted in measurable decreases in blood pressure).[citation needed]," how about citing Balch's taurine claims in her home remedies book

and stating that Balch says taurine is a remedy for high blood pressure? - 173.24.245.10 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, WebMD states, "Researchers aren’t exactly sure why taurine seems to help congestive heart failure (CHF). There is some evidence that it improves the function of the left ventricle, one of the chambers of the heart. Taurine might also improve heart failure because it seems to lower blood pressure and calm the sympathetic nervous system, which is often too active in people with high blood pressure and CHF. The sympathetic nervous system is the part of the nervous system that responds to stress." http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1024-TAURINE.aspx?activeIngredientId=1024&activeIngredientName=TAURINE - 173.24.245.10 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2013
Huxtable RJ (1992) Physiological actions of taurine. Physiol Rev 72:101–163 this is the reference for the first citation: (It is a major constituent of bile and can be found in the large intestine and accounts for approximately 0.1% of total human body weight)

109.171.137.211 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for your help improving the article.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to review taurine rumors
There is a hoax that started on social media about energy drinks containing bull semen or bull urine. All one would have to do is use a search engine to verify this. Here's 1 of 10 links I found debunking this hoax. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/energy-drinks-bull-sperm-warning.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.49.190 (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Taurine has been claimed by many to have toxic effects in the media, and there are many stipulations that taurine in Red Bull has been taken from bull semen. I think that we should clear this up for the parents and kids who look up ingredients of marketed energy drinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.132.254 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Claimed by many? Who? The article already shows that there are no adverse effects for up to 1,000 mg of taurine per kilogram of body weight per day. I think the only people who claim it's toxic are self published individuals who are not qualified to make such statements. It's also not Wikipedia's job to address fringe theories, rumors and urban legends - in particular those on particlar brands (when this isn't that brand's article). -- Quar te t  20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is that 1,000 mg/Kg thig mentioned? It's not in the Toxicity section. --Jcayzac (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Is taurine an amino acid?
Eventually, is tauine an amino acid? The article does not provide evidence against. Many manufacturers of dietary supplements advertise it as a sulphur-containing amino acid. See also https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514918 688dim (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not an amino acid. Amino acids have carbonyl groups. The Wikipedia [amino_acid] page explains that. Kd4ttc (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Amino acid Kd4ttc (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding claims under physiological functions
Someone should really take a hard look at the claims that are made, supported by dubious studies, under the physiological functions section. E.g. the claim "Additionally, supplementation with taurine has been shown to prevent oxidative stress induced by exercise." cites a study that had eleven participants. 78.72.162.175 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Taurine in energy drinks
Taurine is in many energy drinks but is mainly known for ‘Red Bull’ as it began accompanying with bulls’ semen otherwise known as ‘sperm’ or ‘ejaculation’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:C3E:4FFB:4442:97C0:410A:6C83 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC) "Taurine is regularly used as an ingredient in energy drinks, with many containing 1000 mg per serving,[14] and some as much as 2000 mg.[15]"

Should be moved under dietary intake section? I'm unable to do it as I'm not registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.36.77 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Toxicity section, please fix unsubstantiated claim of psoriasis induction by taurine
In the Toxicity section, please change "There is an indication that taurine (2 g/day) has some function in the maintenance and possibly in the induction of psoriasis." to, "There is an indication that taurine (2 g/day) has some function in the maintenance and possibly in the induction of psoriasis. This claim has not been substantiated and is questioned in numerous studies., , Relavation (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That claim is supported (almost verbatim; should be reworded) by the citation at the end of the paragraph. Regards, Celestra (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Celestra. Please note that the evidence given in the reference at the end of the Toxicity section is from an opinion paper and not data based. The reason given for that almost verbatim statement in the opinion paper, is a single reference to an initial study by Roe done in 1966. Later research contradicted Roe's findings. The opinion paper was not properly informed. The three references I gave, which overturn the conclusions of Roe, were data based, in rebuttal to, and published AFTER Roe. Please note the following:

From the first reference (1968): "(3).CONCLUSIONS The results of this study fail to support the thesis that taurine is of etiological importance in psoriasis... Despite this, only 2, of whom one was on 990 mg for 4 weeks, became worse. This is hardly less than would be expected in view of the periodic remissions and exacerbations to be expected in psoriasis, particularly in outpatients in a 2 to 4 week period."

From the second reference (1982): "In our study, the conditions of only one of 13 patients taking large daily doses of taurine became noticeably worse, and thus we could not confirm Roe's findings."

From the third reference (1969): "Results of this study fail to support the concept that a low-protein, low-taurine, or low-tryptophan diet is of value in the management of psoriasis." This is not a matter of actual dispute, but rather of an old study coming to a wrong conclusion which is then corrected by later work. Please help stop this old wives' tale! Thank you.

Perhaps a better rewording for the article would be: Cut the sentence about Taurine being involved in the maintenance and induction of psoriasis, and replace it with: "Although an early study proposed that taurine might be involved in the maintenance and etiology of psoriasis, later studies failed to find a significant correlation." ,, Relavation (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We shouldn't remove well-sourced claims. If you want to add some neutral text to the effect that three later studies failed to support Roe's findings, that would be fine. I am concerned by your characterizing a study as an "opinion piece" or "old wives' tale". Even if the older study is not supported by later studies, that doesn't invalidate the earlier study, it just casts some doubt on the findings. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling it an opinion piece was just description, from the title: "Opinion on Caffeine, Taurine and D-Glucurono - g -Lactone as constituents of so-called "energy" drinks (expressed on 21 January 1999)".

The claim of psoriasis induction by taurine had only one source, which was the small initial study by Roe (based on just 5 psoriatic patients). This claim ignored several later, larger studies which did not find any such correlation. How about this, without characterization, and in a neutral voice -

After the sentence:

"There is an indication that taurine (2 g/day) has some function in the maintenance and possibly in the induction of psoriasis." Please add:

Later, larger studies failed to find correlation between taurine intake and psoriasis. , ,

Thank you Celestra. Relavation (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * "A 1962 study found an indication ... . Three later studies failed to support that finding."
 * That is as neutral as possible. I'd like to avoid "larger" without an independent source making the claim; it may or may not be larger in a meaningful way and biases the reader. Likewise, including the number of studies avoids making it sound as though all later studies disagree (or all previous studies, in the case of the change to "a 1962 study"). If you agree, I'll implement it this evening. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you Celestra. Just one thing - the original (small) study by D.A. Roe was 1966 instead of 1962. I hope you will be able to include the references to the three later studies. I believe I formatted them properly in my last edit, though I cannot preview the results. Thank you, and have a very good evening. Relavation (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching my error regarding the year. I reformatted the references to use our cite journal template for consistency. If you want to preview the appearance of the citations in the future, use after the text. (I have added several above.) The "close=1" argument causes the references not to be carried past that list into a subsequent list. Regards and thanks for improving the article, Celestra (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference to the 1966 article is a review that referenced the paper. The original paper was a well done metabolic study that described Taurine administration causing Pruitt is is patients with psoriasis. It raised a question of etiology given development of plaques and noting that there was evidence of Taurine in the plaques. I think the reference should be the original reference J Invest Dermatol. 1966 Apr;46(4):420-30 with a link to the online accessible version which I’ve included here. https://www.jidonline.org/article/S0022-202X(15)47104-0/pdf Kd4ttc (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I got spelcheked. Should be pruritis not Pruitt Kd4ttc (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguous?
tau·rine [tawr-ahyn, -in] adjective --2601:0:8A80:8AF:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * of, pertaining to, or resembling a bull.
 * 1) pertaining to the zodiacal sign Taurus.

Reference 20
The reference 20 leads to a redirected page with spam. I do not have the credentials to edit. Thanks in advance for fixing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.52.87 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it here. I have changed the link to another website that hosts what appears to be the same article.  It has lots of ads, but at least it is better than the previous one which no longer works.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How much do humans make a day
Article says taurine is made in the pancreas (from cysteine) but doesn't says roughly how much (in adult humans). Is anything known about what affects the rate of synthesis and routes of excretion or degradation ? (so we can compare with what might be absorbed from dietary taurine) ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin B12–dependent taurine synthesis regulates growth and bone mass seems to imply mice make it in the liver if they have sufficient B12. - Rod57 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Taurine is one of the most common molecules in the human body. The average human contains ~1/2oz of Taurine, or, according the second sentence of the article currently, perhaps even close to 3 ounces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015
Under the heading 'Nutritional significance', 3rd sentence, I believe it should be changed from "Evidence indicates taurine is beneficial for adult human blood pressure and possibly, the alleviation of other cardiovascular ailments (in humans suffering essential hypertension, taurine supplementation resulted in measurable decreases in blood pressure)" to "Evidence indicates taurine may be acutely beneficial for blood pressure in male rats. A single intravenous taurine supplementation resulted in measurable decreases in blood pressure. However, when rats were supplemented with taurine in their drinking water, females rats only showed an increase in blood pressure. Both genders showed significant tachycardia."

Both references state this and there was no mention of humans involved in the study.

14.2.185.225 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. It's a real long stretch to say that study indicates human benefit; the abstract doesn't mention humans at all. Copyedited slightly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Boiling point
Why is it's boiling point O'malley. LOl wtf!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.76.102 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may have been part of a reference that got misplaced. In any case, I have removed it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2015
Under the Biosynthesis section, the last sentence says "It is unclear whether hypotaurine is then spontaneously or enzymatically oxidized to yield taurine." Please change to"Hypotaurine is enzymatically oxidized to yield taurine by hypotaurine dehydrogenase."

This can be referenced here: Sumizu K (1962). "Oxidation of hypotaurine in rat liver". Biochim. Biophys. Acta 63: 210–212. doi:10.1016/0006-3002(62)90357-8. .

Jcrellin (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
In the Safety and toxicity section the article states " A substantial increase in the plasma concentration of growth hormone was reported in some epileptic patients during taurine tolerance testing (oral dose of 50 mg per kg body mass per day), suggesting a potential to stimulate the hypothalamus and to modify neuroendocrine function" without citing a source. Please add the reference: Effects of taurine on seizures and growth hormone release in epileptic patients. Mantovani J, DeVivo DC. Arch Neurol. 1979 Nov;36(11):672-4. PMID: 508122 Full text for subscribers: http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=577988

Blennysalmon (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. fredgandt 09:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

More detail on food sources would be helpful
Article says "fish and meat" but it would be useful to have mg/kg ranges for various fish and meats. Is there none in chicken eggs ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Taurine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out22_en.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockstar69.com/productIngredients.php?pdt=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://energyfanatics.com/2008/05/03/nos-energy-drink-review/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230225940/http://www.peacehealth.org/kbase/cam/hn-1193009.htm to http://www.peacehealth.org/KBASE/cam/hn-1193009.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902328128.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taurine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20060901110652/http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/910.html to http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/910.html
 * Added tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/index/M820008244125737.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Overdue for an overhaul
Many of the citations are animal studies or individual clinical trials. The quality of this article can be improved by finding literature that meets MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018
Definition of amino acid should be corrected. The sentence just before the contents section reads as:

While taurine is sometimes called an amino acid, and indeed is an acid containing an amino group, it is not an amino acid in the usual biochemical meaning of the term, which refers to compounds containing both an amino and a carboxyl group.[3]

However it should be :

While taurine is sometimes called an amino acid, and indeed is an acid containing an amino group, it is not an amino acid in the usual biochemical meaning of the term, which refers to compounds containing both an amino and a carboxyl group in the same carbon atom (i.e. alpha carbon).

REASON: In biochemical meaning, not all molecules containing both carboxyl and amino groups are called amino acids. For instance, biogenic amine of glutamate is GABA which contains COOH and NH3 groups, but they are cond to different carbon atoms. Hence, it is not an amino acid. Luneris (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reworded, I got what you were trying to say. Fish +Karate 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Questioned paragraph
I removed this paragraph since it make what seems to be biomedical claims:"It also acts as an antioxidant and protects against toxicity of various substances (such as lead and cadmium).   Additionally, supplementation with taurine has been shown to prevent oxidative stress induced by exercise. "--Smokefoot (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential addition to the section on Animal Nutrition"
"FDA Investigating Potential Connection Between Diet and Cases of Canine Heart Disease"

https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmupdates/ucm613305.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.41.103 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit request re: essential amino acid misteak.
The article contains the error describing this as an essential amino acid. This is wrong in both that Taurine is not one of the 20 essential amino acids nor is it even an Amino acid. I’d fix it myself but the article is locked. Thanks! Steve : Kd4ttc (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

GABA
Taurine is a potent activator of extrasynaptic GABA(A) receptors in the thalamus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18171928 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/1/106

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/02/scientists-close-taurines-activity-brain "We have discovered that taurine is a strong activator of what are known as GABA [gamma-aminobutyric acid] receptors in a regulatory area of the brain called the thalamus," said study senior author Neil L. Harrison, professor of pharmacology and pharmacology in anesthesiology at WCMC. "We had discovered these receptors two years ago and showed that they interact with the neurotransmitter GABA -- the brain's key inhibitory transmitter -- that is also involved in brain development. It seems that taurine shares these receptors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.73.17 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020
Taurine does not melt, but instead decomposes into SOx, NOx, CO2, H2O and carbon soot. Source: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Taurine 2601:585:C100:BBD0:49F0:38A3:96F5:F01B (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Glycemia
The single primary source cited here is deprecated. I have retained it as per request of another editor.sbelknap (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Deprecated" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, that a source is so unreliable in general that we don't use it. That's not the case here. The "meta analysis" (a very small [N=209] post-hoc study) found a few correlations over 95% CI. That doesn't mean the 2004 study was invalidated. It also doesn't support the claims you made in Wikivoice but I can fix that. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Brøns et al did this study in a cohort of nondiabetic overweight Danes with genetic risk for diabetes. Compared to other populations, Danes have a relatively high dietary intake of high-taurine foods, particularly seafood—which is high in taurine content (notably mollusks & crustaceans). Thus, at baseline, Danes are more likely to be taurine-replete than other populations; the non-supplemented measurements confirm that most of the subjects in this trail were taurine replete, so one would expect little or no effect from taurine supplementation. Of the 20 subjects in Brøns, only 3 managed to achieve a taurine level > 200 µmol/L (figure 2), probably due to these subjects poor adherence to the study protocol (as the authors acknowledge). Given the high likelihood of taurine-replete status at baseline, some sort of serious flaw in the intervention (probably poor compliance), and the use of a non-diabetic cohort of subjects, this study is underpowered to detect an effect signal for glycemia. For these reasons, this experiment is not a valid test of the hypothesis. I consider this study deprecated, as we would not expect non-diabetics who are taurine-replete and who don't comply with the study protocol to demonstrate an effect on glycemia. I understand that for purposes of wikipedia, these obvious flaws would be considered WP:OR, and we must pretend that Brøns provides some sort of useful information.
 * Even if we dismiss these flaws in Brøns as WP:OR, it is not immediately obvious to me why we would give higher weight to a primary source reporting out a single RCT in 20 nondiabetic subjects over a systematic review & meta-analysis of 5 RCTs with aggregate 209 diabetic subjects (i.e., ten-fold more subjects). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials is considered Level 1 evidence in commonly-applied evidence schema (e.g. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine hierarchy ).
 * Thoughts? sbelknap (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the hierarchy of evidence argument. However, leaving out Brons would make the paragraph sound as if taurin supplements are are sure thing in the treatment of diabetes. Does that really sum up the current evidence? All I am saying is that it does sound a bit to rosy and Wikipedia would possibly be the only source making this bold statement. If I open a textbook on diabetes, does taurin play a role at all? CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tertiary sources often recommend a Mediterranean diet pattern for diabetics, which includes enough meat or fish to meet metabolic needs for taurine. For example, see the endotext online textbook chapter "Nutritional Recommendations for Individuals with Diabetes" here.
 * For those following a 100% plant-based diet, taurine is a potential concern, as plants do not provide taurine. There is some value in emphasizing adequate protein, as the cysteine in plant proteins can spare taurine. Some dietitians recommend taurine supplements in this situation but I don't expect there is an expert consensus on that. Some people who are mostly vegan are willing to eat shellfish. (Famously, Steve Jobs held that he would not eat anything that had eyes, so was willing to eat some shellfish.) This is a decent source of reliable info on vegan health & taurime, which perhaps we could cite in this wikpedia article on taurine: https://veganhealth.org/taurine-and-carnitine/
 * The metabolic effects of taurine on glycemia have been understood for many decades. There was an entire issue of Metabolites on taurine & metabolism: Miyazaki, Teruo, Takashi Ito, Alessia Baseggio Conrado, and Shigeru Murakami. "Editorial for Special Issue on “Regulation and Effect of Taurine on Metabolism”." Metabolites 12, no. 9 (2022): 795.
 * Another relevant area is the composition of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) solution, where a patient is unable to meet nutritional needs from oral feedings for some reason. This review is pretty good on that topic and recommends taurine be added to TPN solution:
 * Regarding Brøns et al, its a good example of how avoiding most primary sources on medical info is helpful. An expert reading this article would dismiss the results as unreliable, (and inadvertently humorous) but this would be WP:OR. sbelknap (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a lot of OR. The textbook doesn't even mention taurine, or I can't find it. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The textbook mentions meat and fish. Taurine is present in meat and fish.
 * The point is that this article could be improved in a way that requires no WP:OR. sbelknap (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The textbook mentions meat and fish. Taurine is present in meat and fish this is classic WP:SYN. I put the primary study ahead of the meta analysis because it was chronological. I take no exception to leading with the meta analysis if anyone thinks that is better re hierarchy of evidence. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree that this would be WP:SYN but I haven't proposed putting that in the article without a cite. Instead, I'm answering a question asked by another editor. It would be possible to improve this article in a way that requires no WP:OR or WP:SYN. Citing Brøns at all will give a chuckle to those who understand the taurine literature. sbelknap (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the talk page exists to discuss improvements to the article, people generally assume you'll be discussing improvements to the article. Why were you discussing the textbook here if it doesn't mention Taurine? Metabolites is predatory; not MEDRS. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was responding to another editor that meat/fish contain taurine; explaining that for that reason, dietitians recommend eating meat/fish to diabetics who have no objection to doing so. This is directly relevant to the article. In order to turn this discussion into a better wikipedia article, some high-quality sources will be necessary. sbelknap (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats... not why dieticians recommend meat and fish. Not primarily so anyways. VQuakr (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We agree. sbelknap (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be citing primary sources with very small sample sizes. The paper from 2004 which is a primary source and outdated involved only 20 patients. This fails WP:MEDRS. It is a very weak source, it does not belong on the article so it has been removed. In regard to taurine and chronic diseases, very little research has been done, there have only been a few trials. Most of the published literature on taurine is from animal studies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)