Jump to content

Talk:Riboflavin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m rmv duplicate parm
No progress being made, marking review as failed.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|13:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Biology and medicine|note=|status=onhold}}
{{FailedGA|21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)|topic=Biology and medicine|page=1}}


{{Vital article|topic=Biology|subpage=Health|level=5|class=B}}
{{Vital article|topic=Biology|subpage=Health|level=5|class=B}}

Revision as of 21:59, 27 November 2021

Template:Vital article

needed to make FAD

There was a question previously if riboflavin was necessary for the synthesis of FAD in all living cells. Looking at the structure of riboflavin, and then flavin mononucleotide, and then FAD, I see no way around it. Even if riboflavin is not an essential additive in species X, they'll have to synthesize riboflavin to be able to make FAD. David M

Beriberi

I believe beriberi is the result of a B1 defficiency, not B2... According to [1], "deficiency syndromes are characterized by sore throat, swelling of mucous membranes, mouth and/or lip sores, anemia, and dermatitis" - this doesn't sound like beriberi to me. Of course, I could be wrong - I'm not a doctor. User:nyh

After a lot of time with what I believe is a wrong fact (the beriberi connection) in the text, I decided to mark this as a factual dispute. I hope that someone can help me verify the correct fact. Nyh 08:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • You're right, it's wrong. Beriberi is caused by thiamine deficiency. A riboflavin deficiency doesn't have any "disease" name to go with it, probably because it almost invariably occurs in combination with deficiencies of other water-soluble vitamins. == Nunh-huh 08:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GM?

The author has left me wondering what GM stands for in the sentence: "In processed foods it is very likely to be GM ..." I would have edited the article to make it less vague, except I am hardly an authority on biochemestry.

It stands for Genetically Modified, I believe; meaning it is produced by an engineered bacteria. However, I'm not sure this is the best way to word that paragraph (and we need to clarify and wikilink something there). I'm not sure how to improce it either.RJFJR 01:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bright yellow urine

I added a comment on this, I hope it's cool.

E101?

The designation "E101" appears twice in the article, but with no reference. I'm curious what it means. Anastrophe 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Florescence,

I think a comment on the “bright yellow color” actually showing florescence under black light should be added. This fact shows why this vitamin is used as a food additive (Because of it’s nutritional value, and it’s effectiveness as a natural dye)

Deficiency

"it is thought deficiency is common"

By whom? This needs a reference cited. Very doubtful it is correct, especially in Western countries.

Added clarification and reference. Mild deficiency common in third world countries that do not have grain fortification policies; uncommon in U.S. and Europe. Data for the U.S. from NHANES and WWEIA.David notMD (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

There seems to be a contradiction: the first sentence states that Riboflavin is easily absorbed, and water soluble, the last paragraph says that it is not, and is secreted in urin (turning it bright yellow) and is difficult to deliver in water as it is insoluble!? any citation on this would be insightful.

this contradiction was added on March 23, 2004 if you look in the history

IS water soluble, but less so compared to other B vitamins. If not water soluble, would not turn up in urine! Commercially, most products are fortified foods (flour, bread, pasta) and tablet or capsule dietary supplements, so solubility problem sidestepped.David notMD (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose?

It's good to have a section discussing overdose conditions and symptoms in any page discussing a 'healthy vitamin'. If anyone has this information it'd be good to place it here.

Now covered under Toxicity. Riboflavin is considered non-toxic for the reasons given (increasingly poor absorption as dose is increased; efficient excretion by kidneys into urine; lack of identified adverse effects).David notMD (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factual discrepancies and errors

There seem to be a couple of factual discrepancies on this article. Some of the statements that are made, e.g. "Vitamin B2 is also required for red blood cell formation and respiration, antibody production, and for regulating human growth and reproduction. It is essential for healthy skin, nails, hair growth and general good health, including regulating thyroid activity," are not substantiated in the reference cited, and some other statements, e.g. "Any excess is excreted in the urine, frequently imparting a bright yellow color," seem to contain factual errors. Not being a biochemist myself, I don't feel confident making substantial changes, but are those statements valid? Katechen 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

simple wikipedia

Comment by User:96.230.31.114 moved from article:

Riboflavin was on the Nutrition facts of our Life Cereal box, we didn't know what it was, and decided to look it up. We still don't understand what it is.

I "translated" the page: simple:Riboflavin. I hope this helps. --Slashme 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

serum test

It's stated that measuring erythrocyte glutathione reductase reports on riboflavin levels. Any further comment/info on this? I have no reason to think it's incorrect, but it's clearly an indirect assay (presumably used in a standard clinical setting where more specialised analytical equipment is inappropriate?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.148.173 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sreyhsegaef dvb Dg i dont no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.92.50 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin G

Vitamin G redirects here. It should be mentioned, or better explained, in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing infos all over the places....

--222.67.219.51 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.43.199 (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point, other than that you're confused? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2016: Text added in various places in attempt to make content clearer for people without a science background.David notMD (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

outside from text

This is outside from text: {{Chembox Hazards poop| FlashPt= Palapa (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The vandalism has been fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How get image to show where wanted

The Image:Riboflavinspectra.jpg specified in the middle of the discovery section shows (eg. in Firefox and IE) no higher than the bottom of the infobox, which if the browser window is wide can be two sections lower. Do other users see this problems, and if so how do we fix it ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. Where is it that you want this image to be, vs. where it shows up for you? SBHarris 00:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is specified in the middle of the Discovery section which is where it would be logical and useful for it to be displayed; but if my browser window is wide it actually appears 2 sections lower so that the top of the image aligns with the bottom of the main infobox on the right. - Rod57 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the spectra is a left thumb so I can't figure out how it gets to the right side of your display, where the infobox is. That doesn't happen on mine. Under the infobox on my display is the photo of fluorescent riboflavin solution in plastic tube. SBHarris 00:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiency cancer?

The statement, "Riboflavin deficiency has been implicated in cancer,[15]" is not supported by the paper given in the footnote. The paper presents a complex situation regarding riboflavin and cancer. It only suggests that riboflavin deficiency may increase carcogenicity in a very narrow situation. In other cases the situation is more complex. The statement misrepresents the content of the paper. I suggest that it be removed. 7802mark (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and did so. The cancer reference in question was a speculative review from 1973. A search on more recent science lit did not find support for riboflavin deficiency increasing risk of any types of cancer.David notMD (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary Reference Intakes

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all B vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale is covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Value, using it on food and dietary supplement labels as % DV. DVs were revised in May 2016. What I have written can be improved. It lacks EFSA or other major country RDAs. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin and mineral entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biosynthesis?

Shouldn't this article include a section on biosynthesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.248 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have mention of pricing?

In looking at the leads for all of the vitamins, most have no mention of cost. Would these articles be better if none mentioned cost? Or if all used the same source? Vitamin C states 3-7 cents per 100 mg tablet, referenced to: International Drug Price Indicator Guide. Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA. 2016. Folate and Vitamin B1 cite the same source, but the hyperlinks do not work. Vitamins B1 and B2 reference a text without a hyperlink [Hamilton, Richart (2015). Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia 2015 Deluxe Lab-Coat Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 230. ISBN 9781284057560.] which appears to apply to hospital prescription pricing, as the costs are far higher than vitamin supplement pricing. My preference is for no mention of cost. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much medications cost, especially those on the WHO List of Essential Medicines is important with respect to global health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

The article currently has "Riboflavin was discovered in 1920" but it does not mention where it was discovered. I have local notes that state "milk" which did not help me much because... what type of milk? I assume cow milk. Anyway, could the main article please also mention in what TYPE of milk it was discovered? 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of entire article for consideration of upgrading to B-class

Checking refs, replacing very old refs with newer, ordering sections to be in sync with other vitamin articles, etc., as attempt to improve article so that it can be considered for upgrade to B-class. David notMD (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep for GA nomination

Preparing article for GA nomination. All help welcome.

This will be my ninth effort to raise a vitamin to GA. If this succeeds, that will leave vitamin B1, A, D and E. I dread tackling vitamin D because of its existing length and high level of ongoing editing. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing old refs when possible, and removing refs that are not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis subsection refs are all old and all clinical trials, some quite small (n=6)!, so replacing with use of newer review refs if possible. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Causes subsection being updated and enlarged. Removed mention of several diseases or diet patterns or medications as causing low riboflavin, as literature searches did not confirm. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absorption, metabolism and excretion section being updated and enlarged. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources table added from USDA website. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Functions section

This edit replaced the previous version, here which was a bullet list with no sources. I used the NIH, LPI, and PubChem sources as main references, which are general, comprehensive, and plainly-written for a section with considerable underlying biochemistry (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). Further editing may benefit from use of the LPI source which is a comprehensive review of riboflavin mainly in student-friendly language (I have no affiliation). Zefr (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated to GA review

Some work still needed, but consider it close enough to nominate for Good Article review. All editors welcome to help improve the article. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Riboflavin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm starting this review now.

Lead

  • REDUCED FROM SIX REFS TO THREE IN LEAD Per MOS:LEADCITE, most (if not all) of the references in the lead should be moved into the main body of the article.
What's special about those three? WP:LEDE says you only should have citations in the lede for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", which doesn't seem to be the case here. The idea of the lede is that it's an easy-to-read introduction. Unnecessary citations just make it more difficult to read.
  • PREFER NOT TO WIKILINK HERE Link coenzyme, and possibly also flavin mononucleotide, and flavin adenine dinucleotide. If you link of these, you'll probably need to rearrange the wording to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem.
Why do you not want to link it here? It's the logical place; the first time it's used in the article.
OK LINKED IN LEAD, UNLINKED IN FUNCTIONS. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "milk and other dairy products" can be simplified to just "dairy products".
  • DONE Overall, I think the lead dives into detail a bit more than it needs to. I'm not sure where to tighten it up, but take a look and see if you can trim some of the less important material. "although it does occur in time of chronic or acute under-nutrition" could probably go. Likewise, "and have essential roles in"
  • DONE At the same time you're cutting material, I think it would also be good to mention some of the major physical properties, such as it being a water-soluble yellow-orange crystalline powder. And once you mention that, then "In the European Union, riboflavin powder is designated as a yellow-orange food additive." could be reduced to just "it is used as a food coloring".

Definition

  • REMOVED QUOTES FOR FLAVIN Why is flavin in quotes, but not ribose?
  • EEEEK! Removed that sentence. Intestinal bacteria are known to synthesize some vitamins, but never in amounts sufficient to meet requirements. Regardless, discussion of that does not belong in Definition. I will circle back to add more appropriate content to Definition. The fact that it's produced by bacteria in the gut seems at odds with its designation as a vitamin, which I understand to be something which you need to ingest because you can't make yourself. I guess this comes down to whether your gut bacteria is part of "yourself". So, do you get some directly from digesting vegetables that you eat, and then your gut bacteria produce more of it? This could use a better explanation.

Functions

  • DONE, ALSO 'CELL RESPIRATION' link metabolism (or maybe energy metabolism).
  • I don't get the "Riboflaven is essential for the metabolism of ... circulating toxins and drugs". The other things listed are all specific classes of chemical compounds, so it makes sense that there would be a common factor in their metabolism. But toxins and drugs are broad general terms and they don't fit into any specific class of chemical structures. Maybe it should be "... certain types of toxins and drugs", or "... XXX type of toxins and YYY-class drugs"?
    • EEEEK! The sentence in the reference is "These coenzymes play major roles in energy production; cellular function, growth, and development; and metabolism of fats, drugs, and steroids [1-3]." No mention of toxins. The references are to books (most recent dated 2014) I do not have. First step is to remove mention of steroids, circulating toxins and drugs. Second step will be to search for journal literature that meets WP:MEDRS and elaborates on ribolflavin roles for those claims. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE "circulating levels of the amino acid, homocysteine", drop the comma. Or maybe drop the "amino acid" too. There's a link; you can click through to Homocysteine amd the first sentence tells you its an amino acid.

Redox reactions

  • "Redox reactions are cellular processes...", well, yeah, they are, but "cellular process" is much too specifc. Redox reactions occur all over the place, outside of cells. Maybe it's OK the way it is, but think about other ways that might be phrased.
  • Combine that single-sentence paragraph into the preceding paragraph. It sounds stilted to start two consecutive sentences with "FAD...". How about, "It also catalyzes the activity..."

Biosynthesis

  • NO IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE I copied the pathway from an existing article. Please recommend either leaving as is or deleting. I favor deleting. The pathway diagrams are poor quality, and barely legible. I know this is a big request, but they really should be redrawn better.
I'm in a quandry here. Having the diagrams improves the article, but these aren't useful in their current state. WP:GACR doesn't require that the images be legible, so I can't really insist, but let's say I'll enthusiastically encourage producing better versions of these. I reject the idea of "NO IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE". I think what you're trying to say is "It's more work than I'm willing to invest", no?
See Special:Diff/1055955113
How about "IMPROVEMENT DIFFICULT FOR ME"? I have never attempted to create a chemical diagram of any type. I added this synthesis pathway because it was available from another Wikipedia article, but in thinking about article readers, my opinion now is that the text description is sufficient as long as there is the reference to Present Knowledge in Nutrition, which has an excellent synthesis diagram on page 193 and text on page 195-196. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I linked to on WT:WikiProject Chemistry. I looks like you could just drop in File:Riboflavin Synthase Mechanism.png and that would be a significant improvement. I'd suggest inserting it as a right|thumb image so it doesn't take up so much space.
Never mind, I've taken care of it.
  • DELETING Mech 4.jpg would end this problem. Also, File:Mech 4.jpg and File:Riboflavin.svg show the structure reversed left-to-right from each other, which made it difficult for me to understand until I realized this. Is there any standard for how to orient a structure drawing to eliminate this sort of confusion? Or do people just deal with it?
The biosynthesis section is well below GA standard and lacks detailed reliable sources. I re-wrote an article Biosynthesis of Vitamin B12 when the main vitamin B12 article was up for GA review in 2020 and I'm happy to assist here: riboflavin's biosynthesis is simple compared to B12 and can probably be covered within the main article: see this typical detailed reference. I can also (re)do any required chemical structures/pathways as .svg files. Please use my Talk Page for specific requests. as I'll leave it to others involved to decide how the article should be structured.. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull thank you for your comments. I have a basic understanding of biochemisty but I'm not a subject matter expert, and I'm certainly not familiar with the biochemistry literature. I see that Zefr made some improvements to the references, but your comment looks like it came after those edits and you still see problems. So what I'm going to do is put this review on hold and let you folks work on the referencing issue and ping me what that's been resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've redone the biosynthesis section with what I'd consider would be appropriate in a good article. Feel free to tweak the details. I note that the article uses Pubchem as its source in multiple places. You need to be aware that Pubchem is a database and not fully reliable. It would be better to drill down to the actual journal (or other) references which Pubchem is citing rather than leave it to readers here to work out what they are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull, thanks. @David notMD I haven't had a chance to come back to this in detail yet, but I agree with Mike; using the more specific direct source would be an improvement. You could start working on that until I get a chance to get back to this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical properties

  • CHANGED PER SUGGESTION "It is soluble in water and sodium chloride solutions". I looked up the reference, it also talks about being soluble in absolute ethanol. Would it be reading too much into this to say, "It is soluble in polar solvents, such as water and aqueous sodium chloride solutions, and to a lesser extent, absolute ethanol"? Likewise, generalizing about non-polar solvents, which would include the lipids mentioned, plus others in the reference.

Dietary recommendations

  • I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING " The current EARs for riboflavin ..." -> "{{as of}}, the EARs for riboflavin..."
The problem with saying "currently" is that it's time sensitive. The NAM could change their recommendations tomorrow, and then the "currently..." statement will no longer be true. The {{as of}} template expands into some appropriate wording, and also puts the article in a maintenance category to make it easier to keep these statements up to date.
Ah ha! Removed word "current" before EARs. The preceding sentence makes clear that the last update was 1998. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still want to use {{as of}} because it puts the article in Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements which is useful for maintenance purposes. You can use the alt= parameter if the default wording doesn't work. For example, you might do {{as of|1998|alt=The EARs}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I PUT IN 'As of' David notMD (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absorption, metabolism, excretion

  • CHANGED TO "amounts" "treated with pharmacological amount of riboflavin", amount --> amounts. Or maybe "a" before "pharmacological"?

Diagnosis and assessment

  • DELETED " Riboflavin deficiency is also known as ariboflavinosis." this is already stated in an earlier section.

Well, that's a first pass. I'll take a break for now and come back to this later.

Ping me when you're done working through all of these comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I am done working through these comments. (Sent you a note yesterday, but wanted to have one on this page, also). David notMD (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll try to get back to this today. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the interim I will look at Mike T's changes to the article. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2nd pass

Looking over the whole article again, here's what I see:

  • In the tables that accompany "Dietary recommendations", what does "ND" mean? I'm guessing it means "No Data", in which case, why have the column at all? Also, there's no need to say "Infants" in "Infants 0-6 months" (likewise 6-12 months).
  • In "Sources", link "Department of Agriculture".
  • Also in Sources, I don't think the big three-part table adds much to the article. The deeper issue is that I don't see how to correlate this with the cited source. It's a database. I haven't been able to figure out how to even query it to verify the values given in the table. If you put "Riboflavin (mg)" in the "Search by Component" box, you get a ton of entries back ("Currently showing page 1 of 1838 total pages") which isn't useful as a reference. The description you give doesn't even match the data. You say, "rounded to nearest tenth of a milligram for columns 1 & 2", but you've got entries like "0.25-0.4". The column headings say "per 100 grams", but entries like "one cup" are clearly not 100g. Not to mention the odd mix of imperial and metric units.
    • A THREE-COLUMN TABLE OF FOOD SOURCE EXAMPLES HAS BEEN ADDED TO ALL OTHER VITAMIN ARTICLES that I have raised to GA without challenge from the reviewers not subsequent criticism from editors. I am in process of removing mention of rounding to nearest tenth of milligram and will instead post the numbers as they appear in the source document. As to using the source document, the method I used was to use Food Search SR Legacy Foods, rather than Composition Search. I have changed the ref URL accordingly. David notMD (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC) COMPLETED 28 Nov 2021[reply]

Failed review

This has been on hold for 7 days and it doesn't look like any progress is being made on the issues pointed out above, so I've marked this as having failed the GA review. Once the issues have been addressed, it can be re-submitted for another review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, review started 15 Nov, all first pass queries were addressed by 21 Nov. Second set of queries posted 24 Nov, then GA review "Failed" without any attempt to contact me, on 27 Nov. I completed all requested changes in the second set of queries by 28 Nov and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riboflavin&oldid=1057477732"