User talk:Darrencut

Welcome with suggestions
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are: If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many new editors cite themselves mainly.  That behavior is unacceptable.

Ergothioneine
Darrencut: your edits imply in vivo effects when none can be shown. Better to leave the article with basic information, not speculative forecasting, per WP:MEDRS. In vitro antioxidant effects are irrelevant and probably misleading per WP:MEDANIMAL. You have made conscientious effort to add to the article but the material you are choosing is far too preliminary to include it now, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Please review the above guidelines and this antioxidant discussion to help you select appropriate sources and content for the encyclopedia. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MEDRS: for ergothioneine to have evidence of effect in vivo as an "antioxidant" or other putative role, it would have to exceed WP:PRIMARY, as defined in the 2nd paragraph of WP:MEDRS which states "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." That is the standard for physiological effect which current ergothioneine research is far from establishing. --Zefr (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see compilation of both in vivo and human clinical studies related to ergothioneine and/or OCTN1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ergothioneine


 * For this article the standards set forth in WP:SCIRS are most appropriate as this compound has biological significance far beyond human health and medicine and is a topic of active research in a range of natural sciences. Physiological effects of erothioneine have certainly been established in vivo, and there are a number of clinical studies confirming its biological relevance in human. Wikipedia:Scientific consensus that ergothionine has antioxidant properties in vitro and in vivo is well established by credible secondary sources as defined by WP:SCIRS. Additionally, to say there is "no evidence to date that ergothioneine has any functional role in humans" is not accurate per cited references above. I will provide additional references and edit rationale in Talk:Ergothioneine as I continue to review the current body of literature/publications. --Darrencut (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)