Talk:Allicin

Untitled

In the entry, it states that "Alliin is an amino acid that does not build proteins." I really don't see that from the structure of Alliin. There is no carboxyl or amine group! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.116.132 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the chemical equation for converting alliin to allicin, the molecule labeled as pyruvic acid is not pyruvic acid. 162.198.189.65 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Allicin Supplements

Although the antibiotic properties seem to have been noted, there are a zillion products on the market boasting anything from "6mg potential allicin" to "600mg pure allicin powder". Is there any sort of study or even general consensus regarding the effectiveness or the different types, or reputable brands? I found one study here, ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00874666 ) but as you can see it doesn't even conclude until mid-2011.

Ajoene

RE: Recent revert of my addition of note about ajoene: Nowhere in this article is ajoene mentioned. Considering the close connection between allicin and ajoene (read the article), this seems negligent. As I understand, whenever allicin is dissolved in a lipid (such as an edible oil, as the article states), ajoene is formed. Since garlic is usually used in cooking, this is not far-fetched; think garlic in olive oil. Ajoene is a very close relative to allicin. 24.7.178.142 (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Find a source that says this before you reinsert the text.

Ben (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it was usable info,I'm just trying to help. :p--Fireaxe888 (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This info is corroborated under the Ajoene article, with a source from Scientific American. However the article cannot be directly accessed to confirm this. If it is okay under the article Ajoene, it should be okay here. Halogenated (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK,as long as it's got a reliable source,it can go in. --Fireaxe888 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

In a rat study, allicin was found to be an activator of TRPA1. The neurons released neurotransmitters in the spinal cord to generate pain signals and released neuropeptides at the site of sensory nerve activation, resulting in vasodilation as well as inflammation.

References

Phlatulator (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)phlatulator

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Allicin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Importance of Allicin Allicin is an important compound that finds its way into daily life. This article is fairly well written, but a little expansion wouldn't be bad.

Last edited at 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cochrane systematic review deleted

Take a look at this edit by Zefr and the reasons at edit summary: (→‎Research: rv Research section as the only studies are primary; no human evidence to date)

One of the two refs is a primary source, but not the other one, which is a Cochrane systematic review. There is no reason to delete the information supported by the Cochrane systematic review, so I will restore it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Try these review articles. Every one mentions Allicin:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25153873

http://journal.waocp.org/article_30300_04053e65b2b43328ef18469ad9cadceb.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24964572

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24379960

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915757/

I would stay around to help edit collaboratively, in good faith and from a neutral point of view but this semester in school is limiting my editing. I admire your work, keep it up. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• The Cochrane review (PMID 25386977) is about garlic, not this specific chemical in garlic. To the extent that any traditional medicines worked (and things like willow bark clearly or wormwood clearly could work) it takes science a long time to figure out if is some active single chemical was doing the work (salicylic acid for willow, artemenisin for wormwood) or if there is some combination of things. The Cochrane review should be in the garlic article (i'll make sure it is), but not here. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

yep it is there: Garlic#Common_cold Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I agree, its place is on garlic page. Thank you very much.

Barbara (WVS)Thank you very much for your kind words and your effort.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The review does say "This trial randomly assigned 146 participants to either a garlic supplement (with 180 mg of allicin content)" and the conclusions "There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold." is IMO notable here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

just re-read the cochrane review and looked at the underlying paper, PMID 11697022. They gave the people Allimax which is allicin; not garlic. OK then. I will not this at the garlic article. Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical research

Allicin is being studied for treatment of MRSA:

• Ref #13 is a review published in Trends in Food Science & Technology journal.
• Ref #14 is news in Oncology Times Journal.

• Both of the above are discussing the 2004 Cutler in vivo allicin study published in British Journal of Biomedical Science journal.

• Ref #15 is a study in vivo published in Clinical Microbiology & Infection Supplement journal. (While the ISSN links to the journal, I linked the title to the conference abstract which is free access).

• I added this one to show in vivo studies are also commencing.

And the common cold:

• Ref #16 is a review published in Canadian Family Physician Médecin De Famille Canadien journal.
• Ref #17 is a review published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

• both of the above are talking about the 2001 Josling in vivo study on Allicin published in Advances in Therapy journal.

• Ref #18 is the Josling study ( added this one so people can easily access it).

Am not sure why two editors are making a fuss about not mentioning this. It's just informing the reader what allicin is being studied for.Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ref 13 is actually used in the article. Not sure why you are bringing it up.

yes ref 14 is popular media, not MEDRS

2004 Cutler is a twelve year old primary source and ref 13 talks about a lot more than that; and per WP:MEDREV we don't use news hyping a primary source (back to ref 14)

ref 15 is yet another primary source - actually appears to be a conference abstract so double no thanks.

ref 16 review for common cold, OK, can come in - done; my bad for missing it.

ref 17 is about garlic not allicin.

ref 18 Josing study is primary, not useful.

there you go. You knew all that already as we have been over this before. Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS is not relevent here. We are not talking about cures, just what is being researched.Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Still need secondary sources for anything in the realm of biomedicine. Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Look above - 2 secondary sources for each research subject accompanied with 1 primary source ("Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." WP:MEDREV). And as for your comment in the revert history, The cutler study is preliminary research in treatment of MRSA. Both secondary sources say this.Bigbaby23 (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

we have two MEDRS sources; that's it, and they are plenty. There is a lot we don't know about allicin; we don't need more than two to say that and we cannot say more than that.. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version. I made a small addition of "Multiple drug resistance" to the sentence (as per ref description). Jytdog stop being so aggresive it is counter productive.Bigbaby23 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

you screwed it up with this MDR is for bacterial, and you removed viral. for pete's sake. fixed it Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

S=O bond badly shown in ball-and-stick model

In the ball-and-stick model used on the page, File:R-allicin-3D-balls.png, the double-bond between the sulfur and oxygen atoms in the thiosulfinate bond is poorly displayed—the one stick of the bond is almost occluded by the other, and while when viewing the image at full size, it is clear that the bond is a double bond, when the image is shrunk down as on this page, the few pixels of the occluded stick blend into their surroundings and the bond looks like a single bond. This confused me for quite a while. To improve the quality of this image, I would choose to take it from a different angle, orbiting the camera to the right of where it was for the particular picture that was taken—this would improve the visibility of the double bond. ThinkingCat (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Biosynthesis slide has a small error

An intermediate is shown as pyruvic acid. It is not. The nitrogen is shown correctly as coming off as ammonia. The nitrogen can't be in both molecules, the Pyruvic acid and ammonia. Tero111 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)