Talk:Asymmetric dimethylarginine

Untitled

Interesting stuff

This is cited in the media article pointed to - Smith CL, Anthony S, Hubank M, Leiper JM, Vallance P (2005) Effects of ADMA upon gene expression: An insight into the pathophysiological significance of raised plasma ADMA. PLoS Med 2(10): e264.[1]

It is introduced by a quite accessible article which may be better than the journalist's version curently pointed to[ http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020331]

Valkonen VP, Paiva H, Salonen JT, Lakka TA, Lehtimaki T, et al. (2001) Risk of acute coronary events and serum concentration of asymmetrical dimethylarginine. Lancet 358: 2127–2128[Valkonen VP, Paiva H, Salonen JT, Lakka TA, Lehtimaki T, et al. (2001) Risk of acute coronary events and serum concentration of asymmetrical dimethylarginine. Lancet 358: 2127–2128] looks potentially interesting to a general audience, and to doctors rather than cell-scientists

Deng Z, Morse JH, Slager SL, Cuervo N, Moore KJ, et al. (2000) Familial primary pulmonary hypertension (gene PPH1) is caused by mutations in the bone morphogenetic protein receptor-II gene. Am J Hum Genet 67: 737–744. may be a bit heavy but looks clinically relevant.

THis is the PLOS addendum (CC Licence attribute...) "What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

The researchers are trying to find out whether elevated ADMA levels can cause vascular disease. In this study, they treated cells from blood vessel linings with levels of ADMA equal to those found in people with vascular disease and measured how gene activity changed in response. They found that a number of genes were more active when the cells were exposed to the elevated ADMA levels. Some of these were interesting because other studies suggest that they might be involved in lung, heart, and kidney disease. What Do the Results Mean for Patients?

This area of research is still at an exploratory stage. Additional studies need to examine which function (if any) the genes that respond to elevated ADMA levels play in vascular disease. If they do play active roles, drugs that inhibit them might help to prevent or treat vascular disease."

which looks a proportionate description of the work at present to me - the article is I think rather over-enthusiastic with regard to how clearly we know the significance fo this particular single chemical in a very complex interacting system of many transmitters. I suggest it should become less so. Midgley 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Future

I think recent results of folic acid not only not helping reduce cardiovascular risks in those with elevated homocysteine levels, but rather showing trend in increasing unstable angina events should say a lot about whether lowering something associated with harm necessarily removes the cause of harm. An evening using PubMed shows that a number of approaches have been taken at manipulating ADMA levels:

1. B-vitamins, given ADMA link to homocysteine - we know negative outcome from that
2. free fatty acid suppliments - no benefits shown on ADMA levels.
3. L-arginine - latest papers highlight inconsistant research results and possible explanations for this.

Now this is all good research and certainly improving our understanding, but it is currently just research, there is no widely accepted suggestion that such suppliments shoud be taken and definitely no products yet licensed. Whilst optimism is essential in medicine (that we will learn more and treat better in the future), healthy skeptism is also required (radiation therapy for scalp ringworm, thalidomide for morning sickness, antioxidant vitamins and cancer rates, folic acid - homocysteine - cardiac risks). The mechanism of action needs toning down and better integration with homocysteine and nitrous oxide articles is required by someone with greater biochemistry knowledge. David Ruben ^Talk 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes or References?

The section headed "notes" looks like references. Why that choice of title?

A small topic which has a _lot_ or references makes me wonder whether the references are rather deep and original for the encyclopaedia reader. I'd hope that something which is well-understood would have a reasonably accessible review or summary article, whcih would not doubt point to a hundred detailed references n small aspects and exactly teh work involved in gaining that understanding. Summary: too many references. Midgley 11:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• My preference is to use a section title of "References", but I've recently had pointed out to me that wiki-guidelines seem to be that "Refeences" are major sources used in writing an article and citations (as in <ref name="abc">details</ref> ... <references/>) are given in "Footnotes" or "Notes" (or at a pinch "Notes & references") - see Wikipedia:Cite sources#What to call the References section when using footnotes.
• As for number/type of references, I appreciate the sentiments, but it is quite hard to find much research on the substance, or decide which research advance knowledge - it took me some time hunting down the references, and hopefully now a moderate-knowledgeable reader can follow these to learn more about this advancing field :-) David Ruben ^Talk 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

when i created the article i used the section name "references", which term someone else altered. i still prefer the term "references", when i created the article i chose about 8 citations, which seemed to span the subject pretty well. (i had over 100 i could have used). In others' enthusiam to contribute to this article the number of citations added by others has doubled the citation list, which additions i find unnecessary and cumbersome. i have also included one easily readable reference (cooke) for the lay reader, but i think the other original citations are rather important (granted the lay reader will not want to approach most of them.) regards Anlace 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a bad article - the page looks quite nicely laid out as well. I wonder if there might be a better CVS picture though? The only point I think anyone really picked it up on was that the degree of enthusiasm for the subject may turn out to be a little more than it supports. It is heading for good article standard. Midgley 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asymmetric dimethylarginine. 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/20060208091106/http://www.allaboutadma.com:80/ to http://www.allaboutadma.com/

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) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)