Talk:Estrogen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oestrogen and heart disease

The section needs to be expanded. The following resources may prove useful:

• "Heart disease: Oestrogen activates COX2 pathway". Melanie Brazil. signaling-gateway.org.
• FitzGerald, Garret A. (1 November 2003). "COX-2 and beyond: approaches to prostaglandin inhibition in human disease". Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2 (11): 879–890. doi:10.1038/nrd1225. PMID 14668809.

Diptanshu^Talk 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically which estrogen is present in males in lesser amounts?

As the Article already notes, even guys produce estrogen but we just produce less of it than females do. I believe the Article should clarify specifically which estrogen (E1, E2, E3 as explained in an earlier Section) is present in males albeit in smaller amounts. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

agreed. Estrogen is produced by testes and is crucial for male development and behavior, but the article just ignores it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC179885/ --BBird (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it well-established usage to speak of "estrogen" (singular) as if it were one particular compound?

I don't think it's because they were formerly all thought the same compound. Haven't scientists known all along (since the 1930s) that there are a whole group of estrogens? No one would speak of halogens or hallucinogens this way. And it would be annoying if they did. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientists, when talking to each other, do speak of "estrogens" in the plural. In the general public, when people say "estrogen," they mean estradiol (E2). Comparing let's say a healthy young woman to an old lady of 90 or 100, this is why most people would tell you the healthy young woman has "more estrogen," never mind the fact that a different type of estrogen (estrone, E1) actually has higher levels in the old lady than in the young one.

This is similar to the example of the alcohols, which are also a broad chemical class. When people say "alcohol" in non-scientific conversation, they mean ethyl alcohol or ethanol, C₂H₅OH. (This is the type of alcohol found in fermented beverages, and also, strictly speaking, the simplest linear alcohol. Methyl alcohol or methanol, CH₃OH, is centered on a single carbon and therefore can not be rightly defined as either linear or branching.)

I hope that helps. Would you like the Article to clarify the point? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks—that's really interesting (re estradiol and estrone) and a great analogy (re ethanol and methanol). Yes, I think the article should have a section containing this info, pretty much exactly as presented here. Thanks for replying! Quercus solaris (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I created an Article Subsection as requested. Please read "Type in common reference," which is a Subsection of "Types." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Lead sentence

With this edit, I changed the WP:Lead sentence, and following sentence, from "Estrogens or oestrogens (see spelling differences) are a group of compounds named for their importance in both menstrual and estrous reproductive cycles. They are the primary female sex hormones." to "Estrogen or oestrogen (see spelling differences) is the primary female sex hormone and a group of compounds that play a central role in both menstrual and estrous reproductive cycles." Quercus solaris reverted, stating, "It's less confusingly communicated as-is. Testosterone is one hormone, so the analogy doesn't apply. 'Estrogen', like 'alcohol', has a wide sense and a narrow sense, which is already explained in this article."

Seeing the #Why is it well-established usage to speak of "estrogen" (singular) as if it were one particular compound? discussion above, it's easy for me to conclude that Quercus solaris is the reason that this article currently uses the plural wording. I disagree with that plural wording for the WP:Lead sentence, since this article is not titled "Estrogens," and since "Estrogen" is the far more common wording. Despite The Mysterious El Willstro stating, "Scientists, when talking to each other, do speak of 'estrogens' in the plural. In the general public, when people say 'estrogen,' they mean estradiol (E2).", scientists also commonly state "estrogen" instead of "estrogens." Also, notice that the Alcohol article currently states "is," not "are," for its WP:Lead sentence. I'm not hard-pressed on discarding the plural wording for the WP:Lead sentence, but I am hard-pressed on taking away the vagueness of the WP:Lead sentence. Yes, the WP:Lead sentence is vague, simply stating, in a rather unencyclopedic fashion, "are a group of compounds named for their importance in both menstrual and estrous reproductive cycles." Named for their importance? We should be clear in the WP:Lead sentence that estrogen is the primary female sex hormone and that it is central to the menstrual and estrous reproductive cycles. I'll alert WP:Med and WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support singular – For simplicity and consistency with the article title. To extend the analogy already used in the lead, there are many kinds of alcohols, yet we can easily define an alcohol without resorting to the plural. Estrogen of course has both a narrow (17-β-estradiol, the most active endogenous estrogenic hormone) and broad meanings (any compound that mimics the physiological effects of 17-β-estradiol). However it is simpler and less confusing to start with the narrow definition and then expand it later in the lead. I also support rewriting the lead sentence to make it more encyclopedic although I find the word "central" vague. In addition, estrogen does a lot more than regulates the menstrual and estrous reproductive cycles, it also is required for the development of secondary female sex characteristics, maintenance of bone, and has important physiological roles in males. Finally I find the last paragraph in the current lead too wordy and the analogy to alcohol used there more confusing than clarifying. Boghog (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

support singular as Flyer22 has indicated there should be no vagueness in the lead sentence, therefore... Estrogen should be used.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Estrogen to keep it consistent with the name of the article. And we say it is a group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. OK, the singular can work if it's done the way alcohol is. I just want the end result to be clear/not confusing to a lay reader. Which is no doubt what others want as well. I would point out that the reason the alcohol article can start off with the singular and yet not be confusing is because it follows the pattern "X (singular) is any of several Ys with trait Z". Thus, "an alcohol is any organic compound in which blah blah blah ...". I'm perfectly fine with starting off singular in this article if it can be recast in that way: something like "an estrogen is a hormone with traits such-and-such..." The original attempt at recasting the outset was confusingly written; it was combining both senses of the word into one clause. It would be like trying to say about alcohols, "alcohol is ethanol and a group of compounds ..." That's not a clear way to do it. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Honestly, I prefer the plural. Estrogen is in fact a class of compounds, rather than a single compound. Furthermore, when people say "estrogen" in most non-scholarly conversations they mean E2, which is but a single member of the larger class. Wikipedia, however, is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a coffeehouse conversation. Some scholarly language should be used. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mysterious El Willstro, like I noted above, scientists also use the singular form to simply refer to the subject as a whole. The singular form is commonly seen in scholarly sources; so it's not just a layperson matter or primarily a layperson matter. But whether we use the singular form or plural form for the lead sentence, the lead still needs work...per what I stated above and what Boghog stated above. I know that Quercus solaris changed the lead again, in response to this discussion, but I still don't like the flow of that lead sentence, and it's missing the "primary female sex hormone" part, instead letting the second sentence cover that. It's unnecessary to have a second sentence to cover that. The WP:Lead sentence should clearly define the topic when it can clearly be defined, not unnecessarily leave a vital part of the topic for the second sentence to handle. If we are going to use the plural form for the lead sentence, we can look at different sources for comparison. For example, this Encyclopædia Britannica wording or this LiveScience wording. The Encyclopædia Britannica source states, "estrogen, any of a group of hormones that primarily influence the female reproductive tract in its development, maturation, and function." So we could begin with "Estrogen or oestrogen (see spelling differences) is any group," instead of how we currently begin with "An estrogen or oestrogen (see spelling differences) is any of a group." The LiveScience source states, "Estrogens are hormones that are important for sexual and reproductive development, mainly in women." I don't think we should use that exact wording. But we could begin with "Estrogens are the primary female sex hormones." Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The latter ("Estrogens are the primary female sex hormones") works for me. "Estrogen ... is any group" doesn't work right. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How about:

• "Estrogen or oestrogen (see spelling differences) is the primary female sex hormone that is responsible for the development and regulation of the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. The steroid 17-β-estradiol is the most potent endogenous estrogen, but several metabolites of estradiol also have estrogenic hormonal activity and are likewise classified as estrogens."

Boghog (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm fine with that, Boghog. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It has the same problem as some earlier proposed wordings. The first sentence makes it sound like there is one compound that is named estrogen. Full stop. Then the next sentence contradicts that apparent meaning without showing how the contradiction is explained. The writing is problematic. When a word has more than one sense, Wikipedia usually does a better job of conveying that, in one way or another. The opening of the alcohol article handles it well. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the narrow definition of estrogen, there is indeed only one compound named estrogen, namely 17-β-estradiol. Full stop. This compounds is both the most potent and most prevelant circulating estrogen and hence accounts for most of the estrogenic activity in mammals. In many contexts, estrogen and 17-β-estradiol are synonymous. A broader definition includes less active estradiol metabolites. There is nothing whatsoever contradictory including both narrow and broad definitions. Furthermore a hormone does not necessarily imply a single compound. A hormone can be a mixture of related compounds that exert similar activities, such as estrogen (estradiol, estriol, epiestriol, estrone), thyroid hormone (T₄ and T₃), and peptide hormones where there may be more than one isoform and/or post-translational modifications. Hence there is no contradiction in the proposed lead. Finally compare:

• An estrogen is any of a group of compounds that act as the primary female sex hormone that is responsible for ...
• Estrogen is the primary female sex hormone that is responsible for ...

The first definition is pedantic and wordy. The second is more succinct with no loss of accuracy. Boghog (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

• Estrogen or oestrogen (see spelling differences) is the primary female sex hormone that is responsible for the development and regulation of the female reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. Estrogen may also refer to any substance, natural or synthetic that mimics the effects of the natural hormone. The steroid 17-β-estradiol is the most potent and prevalent endogenous estrogen, but several metabolites of estradiol also have estrogenic hormonal activity.

Boghog (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly to some extent there's an "eye of the beholder" effect here, regarding what kind of wording is better. The versions I've leaned toward aren't pedantic or wordy, they're just phrased differently. Given the irreducible eye-of-beholder factor, I'm going to leave it to you all, in this instance. I totally agree that "There is nothing whatsoever contradictory including both narrow and broad definitions"; I, too, want to include both. What I'm saying is that the wording of how they are included is not the best, in terms of transition words and framing. But I don't feel strongly enough about this article to expend everyone's time on it. The version above is good enough, as long as an indicator of use-mention is added if invoking "refer to". One last thing I wanted to add here is that, even if the plural is purged from the lede's outset, there's no need to trip over ourselves avoiding it throughout the entire article. I don't think anyone above was intending that latter idea. I'm just mentioning it in case anyone took it as an obligate corollary. Just as we can validly talk about various paints in the paint article (i.e., plurals of mass nouns do have their place in "type of" uses), it's OK to talk about estrogens in this article, further down after the lede, where the reader will understand it. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, it appears that we are now more or less in agreement. I completely agree with you that the plural can and should be used further down in the article when referring to the class of compounds. Boghog (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the singular version. For a layman, this is a bit confusing and seems to duplicate the definition of estradiol. Why not explain it as it is, that it's a class of compounds, of which the most prevalent is estradiol, and that in singular it's sometimes used as a synonym for the latter? --glossologist (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Glossologist (talk · contribs), the singular version that we currently use is better than the plural version we were using before, in my opinion. How is the singular version confusing to a layperson, when the singular version is used far more often than the plural version? Flyer22 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence clearly makes you think that estrogen is one single compound (the primary female sex hormone), which it's not. Later on you understand that it's actually a group of hormones, but still it causes some unnecessary awkwardness. It can surely be reworded it a better way, cf. Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Estrogen, any of a group of hormones that primarily influence the female reproductive tract in its development, maturation, and function. There are three major hormones—estradiol, estrone, and estriol—among the estrogens, and estradiol is the predominant one." --glossologist (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, there are several definitions of estrogen. The most restrictive definition is limited to the primary female sex hormone, 17β-estradiol, which is a single compound. A broader definition includes 17β-estradiol and its metabolites. The broadest definition includes any compound, natural or synthetic that mimics the effects of 17β-estradiol. The first sentence of the current lead follows the most restrictive definition. The second sentence includes the broadest definition. Both definitions are correct. Boghog (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two definitions of estrogen, but this is not explained until after the first and third sentences are allowed to contradict each other. I tried to fix this but my edits were all reverted. Grassynoel (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oestrogen or estrogen

Dear Readers

The name oestrogen was originally referenced and spelt as oestrin (with an o at the front). I kindly request that the spelling of oestrogen not be spelt with an "e" at the front, as the only reason this spelling came about is due to phonetic convenience originating in America. Please refrain from deleting the edits. For proof feel free to search ALL journal articles from the 1920's onwards that reference oestrogen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.19.81.250 (talk • contribs)

The overwhelming majority of scientific publications use estrogen: estrogen: 136249 to oestrogen: 16761 (roughly 8:1). Boghog (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It is vital to understand the origin of the word. The title is still Estrogen, furthermore the first line makes no confusion that both estrogen and oestrogen can be used, however for the rest of the article the spelling that correctly acknowledges the origin of the word should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OVideO (talk • contribs)

It is more important that spelling follow current usage, not how it was originally spelled. Otherwise, we would still be writing Old English (Elcran, we âwrîtan lîca sê ðâ ðe). As previously discussed here:

The preferred spelling by following three international scientific organizations is "estrogen":

• According to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the preferred name for the estradiol ring skeleton is "estrane" (page 1789: section 38-2.2. Estrane (oestrane)) and the preferred trivial name for the principle estrogen hormone is "Estradiol-17α" (page 1806, Table 2):
  • "IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). The nomenclature of steroids. Recommendations 1989" (PDF). Eur. J. Biochem. 186 (3): 429–58. December 1989. doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.1989.tb15228.x. PMID 2606099. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • G. P. Moss (1989). "Nomenclature of Steroids (Recommendations 1989)". Pure & Appl. Chem. 61 (10): 1783–1822. doi:10.1351/pac198961101783.

Please note in particular:

In addition to nomenclature guidelines, the IUPAC sets standards for international spelling in the event of a dispute; for example, it ruled that aluminium is preferable to the American aluminum and American sulfur is preferable to the British sulphur.

• The approved international Human Genome Organisation name for the ESR1 gene is "estrogen receptor 1" (ER-α). The related genes, ESR2, ESRRA, ESRRB, ESRRG, and GPER all contain "estrogen" in their name.
• Finally the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology official name for the receptor encoded by the GPER gene is:
  • "Estrogen (G protein coupled) Receptor". IUPHAR Database of Receptors and Ion Channels. International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology.

Boghog (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Grassynoel: As previously pointed out in the archives of this talk page, estrogen is the more common spelling, also preferred in scientific literature (see discussion). Also per MOS:RETAIN: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With the exception of a few page moves that were quickly reverted, the name of this article has been for the vast majority of its history "estrogen". Ditto for the predominate spelling of estrogen in this article. Boghog (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well. When I read the article, both spellings were used in different parts. To me this made no sense. Grassynoel (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Grassynoel, we only need to include both spellings in the lead, like we currently do. And when needed for some topics, we include both spellings in a Terminology section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)