Talk:Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemical Abstracts report

@Ketoacids:References to CORM: 3121 reports, papers, patents

>refine to articles including "carbon monoxide": 681 (Wikipedia cannot cite all of these articles, right?)
>refine "Review": 35 reviews have appeared (these citations follow WP:SECONDARY)
>refine "2015-": 10 reviews were published since 2015 (these citations follow WP:SECONDARY but are more recent).

--Smokefoot (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: User:Smokefoot, thoughts on this page being reclassified from "Stub" to "C"? Ketoacids (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in to state that the majority of references are not formatted to Wikipedia requirements. (This is separate from many references being primary, and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia.) David notMD (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD:: Thank you for pointing out the need for citation formatting. It is a priority along with content development. Formatting aside, do you have any CO/CORM/HO-1 related input you would like to contribute?Ketoacids (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No content to contribute. Not my field. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonyl Complexes

There are such a lot of metal carbonyls which do not only release CO but in most cases a toxic metal, too. Even iron is not completely without toxicity (forms radicals and catalyzes oxidations). --FK1954 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CORM

Edits about vitamin C being a CORM under certain conditions, were added to Vitamin C and Vitamin C megadosage. I reverted both, as no citations were provided. In my editing notes, I stated that citations in these articles needs to meet WP:MEDRS. Also, in this article, in section on organic CORMs, deleted content that was either not referenced or not relevant to topic. Article needs work. Many (majority?) of references are not in proper format. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organic CORMS

This is current last paragraph: "Vitamin C,[42] the combination of Vitamin B9 and serine,[43] and glucose[44] have been reported to liberate CO. Though vitamin C is generally considered an antidote for carbon monoxide poisoning, Vitamin C megadosage (specifically under harsh oxidative stress conditions or hemochromatosis), under certain conditions it may liberate therapeutic CO.[citation needed]" It does not appear that any of the citations meet WP:MEDRS. I deleted one ref, but a major contributor to the article restored it - I do not have access to the PDF, only the abstract - and so cannot confirm the citation is appropriate. A bolder approach would be to delete the entire paragraph as not meeting Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, especially for health/medicine topics. This restriction applies here because the content is stating that nutrients liberate carbon monoxide, and is doing so implies a physiologically relevant effect ("therapeutic CO"). David notMD (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

try www.sci-hub.tw for any PDF. You can read about it Alexandra Elbakyan or Sci-Hub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketoacids (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I have taken time to share my CORM expertise. Two weeks ago this page was basically empty. The CORM page now highlights the field, but far more importantly, the references will be valuable for future CORM researchers. Though my contributions need polishing to comply with the Wiki formats (thank you User:David notMD for doing so already), I encourage retention the text and references. Countless hours were spent mining for this information. Many of these reports had been lost with time, have not translated outside of their respective niche communities, or have been hidden by virtue of limited visibility of the source. The Wiki platform now gives the public access to this literature research. Vitamin C is indeed a CORM, which is primarily evident in the Mlakar paper and I personally confirmed this in my lab. This is an exciting phenomenon that deserves to remain highly visible on this platform. The other references (primary, very recent, patents, etc) are the best quality references we currently have given the infancy of this field. Our peers deserve easy access to these hard-to-find references as this page will now promote research progress (and save time). Carbon monoxide as an essential endogenous signal molecule and therapeutic candidate... who would have thought? Ketoacids (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K - As a researcher with a PhD in nutritional biochemistry, I have been tempted to cite my own work. Wikipedia frowns on. Basically, considered a conflict of interest WP:COI as researchers find it difficult to bring a neutral point of view toward their own work. Also, and more important - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such a trailing indicator of science. It is not a platform for emerging science. There is a STRONG bias toward never citing in vitro work, animal work, patents - or original research (stuff you know to be true). I suggest you work on deleting content that does not meet Wikipedia criteria. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, and thanks for the QA/QC. Such discussion only makes Wiki a better resource. I would point out that CORM is not an emerging science. The CO pharmacology and medical application aspect is emerging, but, CO evolving from various molecules is indeed old science. We have not focused on preclinical data, clinical trials, commercial efforts or the like. Thus, from more of a chemistry perspective rather than biomedicine, I have the opinion that some of the 'grey' references are valuable. The goal here is to identify reported CO sources along with CORM development strategies. I think we can agree that COHb and drug devices are relevant to the subject matter. Given this perspective, I do not think we have a bias issue. Sources for CO are laid out in a factual manner without rhetoric or bias towards any given molecule. Is there a specific concern we can settle? Ketoacids (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on what references are valuable has no weight. For example, patents and patent applications are not valid references. I have deleted those (Fabio, Meinel, Winslow, Hsai). Also deleted the content and references on nutrients as CO sources, with reason given in Edit summary. Repaired three refs in the lead to show what refs should look like. David notMD (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of my deletions

I deleted content from the article that I believe is not appropriate for Wikipedia. An editor reverted my deletions. I am stopping my editing on this article so as to not engage in an edit war. However, I stand by my edits as appropriate, and the reversions as not appropriate, according to my understanding of Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on vitamins as a source for carbon monoxide. As the page is "carbon monoxide releasing molecules", it is fair to list vitamin C is a source. User:David notMD has the perspective that it implies unproven physiological significance. The content has been revised based on feedback to clarify this ambiguity. User:David notMD noted patents are not viable references. Initially patent citations were reverted, however, the references have since been modified to literature from appropriate journals. User:David notMD's contributions and feedback are appreciated. Ketoacids (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary citations

WP:PRIMARY

"Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[6]

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." -WP:PRIMARY

The primary sources cited in this page are intended as 1) historical timestamps for first accounts (i.e 1860-1950s), or, 2) the first report of a significant finding. I cited several primary articles, but they are aligned with this guidance/policy as I understand it.

@Ketoacids: If there are good secondary sources available, they should replace primary sources, especially for biomedical content (see WP:MEDRS). In short, cite reviews, don't write them. I have added a number of what look like relevant secondary sources in the further reading section. I have also marked references throughout either as primary or secondary. Even for historical content, it would be better to cite a secondary source that documents who was the first to report a significant finding. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relevant content

The article is about physiologically relevant substances that release carbon monoxide. However, in the lead, there was this sentence: This article highlights multiple sources for carbon monoxide, many of which may not be biologically relevant. Example: "Miscellaneous materials with reports of CO liberation include: cotton, paper, wool, wood, latex, and Tygon tubing.[60] CO has likewise been reported from cedar, alfalfa, sage plant, pigweed, morning-glory, lingustrum, St. Augustine grass, Combs grass, lettuce, celery, pigweed, spirogya, and pecan husk with reports of increasing human carboxyhemoglobin levels.[61]" The lead sentence and non-relevant content was deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]