Talk:Chlorogenic acid

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Glu-6-P enzyme?

Recent studies section claims: irreversible inhibition of G-6-P enzyme. Is this refering to G6PD (dehydrogenase) or glucose-6-phosphatase? I'm assuming phosphatase, but it should be clearer. 196.209.6.25 (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, wasn't logged in GetDownAdam (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

difficult to read

Am I just not getting something, or is this article written without regard to subject-verb agreement in number? For example:

Chlorogenic acid, are a family of esters of caffeic acid and quinic acid, and are a major phenolic compound in coffee, but is also found widespread ...

That passage isn't even internally consistent. It should either be "acid is" or "acids are," right?

Joe 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should read: chlorogenic acid is a family of esters Scubafish 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CGA in insects

somebody has any good info on how CGA acts in insects?

Did you do a Pubmed search? Scubafish 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.178.176.81 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"Chlorogenic acid, is a family of esters formed between certain trans cinnamic acids and (-) quinic acid", but in the picture there is cis-cinnamic acid instead of trans![reply]

cis-trans and what cinnamic acid are we talking about anyway?

The previous poster is absolutely right; the drawing is cis. But worse still, the drawing is (correctly) a caffeate ester, while the text talks about cinnamic acids. I think it unhelpful to refer to cinnamic acids when cinnamic acid usually means HOOC-CH=CH-Ph (see also cinnamate's Wikipedia page) without the extra phenolic hydroxyl groups found on caffeate. Why not call caffeate by its own name? I'm not editing the page as I'm not an expert on CGA, and might be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.155.96.6 (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

This article is very poorly written and full of factual difficulties. The references are abysmal. For example, the article alleged to show the chlorogenic acid can reduce the incidence of diabetes cites a correlation between increased coffee consumption and lower incidence of DM2 in men only. No specific compound was tested. Further, it was a "self-report" study, meaning it was done by questionaire. Even if chloregenic acid per se had been implicated, the study is inherently flawed. Another article was from Reuters News Service, hardly a credible source of scientific information. The antiviral/antimicrobial references again are speculative and not confined to an investigation of chlorogenic acids. Further, the methods for these rather speculative articles (9-11) are laughable. The rest of the references are equally speculative and I hope the point has been made. Personally,I would pull it. P.S. A great part of this article was taken from the following link: http://www.greatvistachemicals.com/herb_extracts/chlorogenic_acid.html, which is a "Health Supplement Site." Thus I suspect this article is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebe1951 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the biomedical material. Well intentioned editors add such material and it just builds up in many articles over time. Such content is discouraged in Wikipedia unless supported by highly authoritative references.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of biomedical material... the health effects section in particular is so jargonized that I would need a degree in biomedicine just to figure out what the heck it is saying. Could somebody please translate it into plain ol' English for us regular people? This is Wikipedia, not a physician's reference book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this the chemical in recent "weight loss" claims for green coffee bean extract?

if so, it could be added to the article about these diet claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mice: Please be more specific

"The mice exposed to the nitric oxide who were pretreated with chlorogenic acid (CLA)"

Pretreated??? They fed mice with CLA extract or injected it in mice brain or something else?

To be honest, at least this page gives beter information about CLA: http://examine.com/supplements/Chlorogenic+Acid/

And how is this study relevant compared to numerous other CLA studies one can find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee1518 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonspecific future product hype/speculation, moved here to cleanup main page

It is hoped that, after subsequent larger studies in animals and humans, a special brew of coffee could ultimately be developed that would be geared toward ensuring that the retina more directly receives the CLA, as opposed to normal coffees where that may or may not be the case (alternatively, CLA-containing eye drops could also be developed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Study confirms blood pressure-lowering effect of chlorogenic acid in essential hypertension

Watanabe T1, Arai Y, Mitsui Y, Kusaura T, Okawa W, Kajihara Y, Saito I.

The blood pressure-lowering effect and safety of chlorogenic acid from green coffee bean extract in essential hypertension.

Clin Exp Hypertens. 2006 Jul;28(5):439-49.

PMID 16820341

Abstract excerpt

Chlorogenic acids (CGA) in green coffee bean extract (GCE) reduce blood pressure ... In the CGA group, but not the placebo group, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) decreased significantly during the ingestion period. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raises plasma homocysteine, a coronary artery risk factor

Olthof MR1, Hollman PC, Zock PL, Katan MB

Consumption of high doses of chlorogenic acid, present in coffee, or of black tea increases plasma total homocysteine concentrations in humans.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Mar;73(3):532-8. Am J Clin Nutr March 2001; vol. 73 no. 3; pgs.: 532-538

PMID 11237928

Free full text http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=11237928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty old paper. Think you can find a review article from within the last 5 years? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heart rate decrease (−2.56 ± 2.85 beats per minute) seen in trial of 1050 mg or 700 mg dose of green coffee bean extract

Joe A Vinson, Bryan R Burnham, and Mysore V Nagendran

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects

Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2012; 5: 21–27.

Published online Jan 18, 2012. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S27665

PMC 3267522

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

... A 22-week crossover study was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of a commercial green coffee extract product GCA™ at reducing weight and body mass in 16 overweight adults.

Subjects received high-dose GCA (1050 mg), low-dose GCA (700 mg), or placebo in separate six-week treatment periods ...

Significant reductions were observed in body weight (−8.04 ± 2.31 kg), body mass index (−2.92 ± 0.85 kg/m2), and percent body fat (−4.44% ± 2.00%), as well as a small decrease in heart rate (−2.56 ± 2.85 beats per minute), ... the decreases occurred when subjects were taking GCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting paper, but secondary sources are strongly preferred. Please see WP:MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural occurrences: please add a TABLE of this.

Or at least tell, how many mg per 100g of each food. Or if the food is spice, mg per dose. Nobody uses 100g dose of a spice! ee1518 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of chlorogenic acids, 3-CQA and 5-CQA

There is a serious nomenclature problem with chlorogenic acids, in that CGA was originally numbered as 3-CQA, which it still is by many manufacturers, but when IUPAC rules were applied in 1976, it turned out that the common form, often referred to as chlorogenic acid, should have been 5-CQA, while the less usual neochlorogenic acid should have been 3-CQA. This Wikipedia article appears to be using the older nomenclature. Unfortunately the real world is a complete mess, with some people using old, and some people using new, ever since 1976, with very poor consensus. The situation is summarized in the following reference: http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0100-4042.20160063
To help future readers understand the difficulty in interpreting the CGA literature, and define better what they're working with, I wonder whether this article needs clarification. I would like (1) to add a short paragraph explaining the problem, citing the above reference; (2) add 5-CQA etc. to the list of alternative names. I am deeply concerned about this because I don't want to imply that 3-CQA and 5-CQA are the same thing, or that it's acceptable to refer to the same compound interchangeably by either name! Unfortunately, though, that's what's happened, and since this is an encyclopedia describing the world, rather than a prescription of what ought to happen, I think we have to allow for readers searching for CGA by either name.
I will go ahead and add this paragraph in a week or two if no one tells me not to. At the same time, I will tidy the "presence in food" section, and change the wording for Hibiscus from "was discovered" to "has been found", as the former implies that it was first discovered there, while the latter adds Hibiscus to the list of foodstuffs containing CGA ('it has been discovered that Hibiscus contains...' would have been ok too, though a bit too emphatic; we speak a strange language!). Thanks for any input. --149.155.219.44 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC) I notice someone's added an extra, and extremely helpful reference to this. It's been marked (by a bot?) as potentially an unreliable reference, but it actually reads with authority and so far as I can tell is correct and valuable. Thanks for adding it, oh anonymous wiki-editor! 149.155.219.44 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a traditional or alternative numbering of quinic acid, that is in the opposite direction than the numbering generated by IUPAC organic (stereo)chemistry nomenclature, ant it should be definitely mentioned. —Mykhal (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I removed the unreliable reference tag as it's been there since 2017 without anyone raising concerns; it was me who wrote the original text, though it wasn't me who found the reference Elemimele (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]