Talk:Advanced glycation end-product

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

FAQ

I removed the following text from the article:

Are there medications that reduce circulating AGEs ? (For example, mimicking RAGE (AGE receptors) to competitively inhibit circulating AGE ?)

Answering this question might be nice for the article. linas 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

Somebody expressed confusion over the distinction between glycosylation and glycation. I don't know why that needs to be in the article, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be included in the opening paragraph. Unfree (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the intro confirm that AGE are modified/damaged/glycated proteins ? Rod57 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is such info. But everywhere on the web there is stuff on glycated proteins after all.--Loki0115 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGE formation in Other Diseases

I added new section about AGEs and other diseases with references. AGEs have been implicated in a number of pathological conditions which is not known to the general public. More important is that there are diet changes that can lower AGE production and hence risk. DanielGlazer (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Although the research on AGEs is quite fascinating, let's remember that this is a general encyclopaedia. AGE disease implications, especially pronouncements about AGE-related "anti-aging" therapies, remain speculative at the moment. Research reported in only one or two primary sources is probably not of sufficient notability for Wikipedia. Let's try to avoid these problems by sourcing the article with good reviews. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits by User:GeorgeLouis

Over the past couple of days User:GeorgeLouis has made some pretty extensive changes as per this set of difs. Some of these are improvements but several rely on sources from Life extension advocates and a) fail WP:MEDRS and b) give too much WP:WEIGHT to those advocate's perspective. The page is still under construction as per the tag which requests others to hang back, so I am not intervening, except to add this note, a note on georgelewis' Talk page, and the medical citations needed tag that I added today to the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pored over the article and at the request of an editor and believe that all the information is cited to WP:Reliable sources (except where a tag specifically calls for a quality cite), and I don't even know what a "life extension" advocate is. Anybody can edit the result. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep, if you just do a plain google search you get all the longevity nonsense; it is exactly because this sort of thing happens with alt med topics, that MEDRS exists, and is important. If you don't want to fix the changes you made, I will probably just revert the ones that made the article less reliable as per MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

went through and fixed the damage. its ok now. as i said many of the changes were improvements.. just some bad sources.Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GeorgeLouis for your continuing edits, and Jytdog for your revisions. This article is looking 100% better from the impenetrable state it was written in previously! --LT910001 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced glycation end-product. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070701161048/http://209.209.34.25:80/webdocs/Glycation%20Page/Glycation%20Page.htm to http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/Glycation%20Page/Glycation%20Page.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced glycation end-product. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090810100221/http://www.cmj.org/Periodical/paperlist.asp?id=LW2007429414606901754&linkintype=pubmed to http://www.cmj.org/Periodical/paperlist.asp?id=LW2007429414606901754&linkintype=pubmed

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the title of this article

There shouldn’t be a hyphen between ‘end’ and ‘product’. They are always two separate words which, in this case, act as a phrase in both American and British English. Top5percent (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I'll attempt a move to the correctly-spelled title.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you measure AGE in a reliable manner?

Add AGE testing 84.241.192.138 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this article?

I don't know enough to be able to work on this, but when I look at the references they are all getting a little old. (AGED? sry, not sry) I know the research in this area is ongoing, there's more articles have been published continuously, up to this year. Someone in the know should probable scan the research to see if any of the statements in this article are out of date. jayoval (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]