Talk:Folate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RDA and UL measure folate differently

Article amended and referenced to address fact that all micrograms are not equal. For Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), micrograms are a combination of food folate and folic acid expressed as micrograms DFE (for dietary folate equivalents) Folic acid is more bioavailable, so each microgram of folic acid counts as 1.7 micrograms DFE. For Tolerable Upper Intake Limit (UL) purposes, only folic acid matters, so the UL of 1000 micrograms refers to actual micrograms of folic acid rather than DFEs. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

US recommendations

IMO "The recommended daily intake of folate in the US is 400 micrograms from foods or dietary supplements."

The FDA only makes recommendations for the US not for the rest of the world and therefore IMO it was fine before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Upgrade to GA?

Starting work on bringing this article to level at which it can be nominated for Good Article. Some of that will be reordering the sections to match what has been done for other vitamin articles. All opinions on what the article needs are welcome here. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Entire Food fortification in process of being rewritten and all references checked. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Checking references David notMD (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Replaced Sources section. Nominating for GA. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Folate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. Typically, I will go through and make general comments as I read, and then tackle the specifics with a checklist after those things have been worked through. Canada Hky (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

This was an interesting read, thanks for the nomination. My initial thoughts are that this article defaults to treating folate / folic acid as a supplement, rather than a chemical compound / vitamin / nutrient. This isn't necessarily a massive roadblock, it just gets confusing at some points. To illustrate - starting with the second sentence in the lead, we are already talking about how it is administered and RDA, not what it does, and why it might be administered. This carries over into the construction of the article as well. The information about what folate "is" and what it does is a bit scattershot around the article. We jump right into health effects, but without having any information about mechanisms, structure etc - the article doesn't build on itself. I don't know that a significant rewrite would be needed, but definitely some reorganization.

Specific comments

• No copyvio detected.
• Images all look good, and appropriately captioned.
• The note about the derivation of the name is in the lead, but nowhere else. Typically, the lead shouldn't contain stand alone information.
• In the definition section, all the alternative named are cited except the last one.
• The preliminary paragraph of "Health effects" isn't really an intro, and it really isn't a summary either. It's almost a mechanism of action, but not quite. I would suggest combining it with the biological roles, and moving the entirety of that section to the start of the article.
• "Folate is necessary for fertility in both men and women. It contributes to spermatogenesis." Suggest a change to this wording. Going back to the original article, I can see that they comment on female fertility as well, but if all you mention here is spermatogenesis, that doesn't reflect female fertility.
• "Taking folic acid over years reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease by 4%" - in who, what dose, how many years? And 4% is meaningless without a bit of context. For a lot of these statements, I have to go back to the original article to find out what is being talked about. Try to add a bit more information, so the reader can grasp the main points without pulling up the original article.
• In the "cancer" section - the last three references are all meta-analyses. It may be giving undue weight to call the last one out specifically in the text. It implies the first two are not. If the third study made any comments as to why they came to a different conclusion, that may be helpful.
• "The reason for the difference is that at least 85% of folic acid is estimated to be bioavailable when taken with food, whereas only about 50% of folate naturally present in food is bioavailable" This sentence is not clear. Does it mean that 85% of supplemental folic acid is estimated to be bioavailable?
• Starting in the dietary recommendations section, but also throughout the article - make sure if you are introducing an abbreviation, it is used later. Otherwise, just leave the abbreviation out - COMA and USDA for sure, but there may be others.
• In the Biological Roles section, the chemical nomenclature is confusing, as the standard F would be fluorine. Are the abbreviations strictly necessary, since they aren't conveying structural information?
• Three sections in the Biological Roles section are unreferenced.
• Food fortification - why is supplementation italicized in the middle of the paragraph?
• Also in this section, the text refers to a "Toxicity" section, which I don't think exists in this version of the article.
• sometimes day is abbreviated, and sometimes it isn't. Since it isn't really a standard unit of measurement, writing it out each time is probably best, but either way, it should be consistent.

This is what I noticed on a first pass. If anything isn't clear - please let me know, and I will try to help. I am going to put this on hold. If you think it will take longer than 7 days to make all adjustments, I have no issues with that. Canada Hky (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Other editors comments

This article has almost zero information on what folate actually does. The biology section is atrocious and need a major rewrite to clearly distinguish between its biosynthesis and function. I will see what I can do to fix this. Long before folate was a dietary supplement, it was an enzyme cofactor essential for life. I also take issue for putting health effects before function. Function puts health effects in context. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading the section more carefully, there is some useful information. However the section heading are very misleading and I believe function should proceed biosynthesis which should proceed medical uses. Boghog (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to jump into a section being actively edited, but if you'd like a hand with the biology section (per Boghog's comments above), ping me and I'm happy to spend some time on it. I'm glad to see folks putting time into such a key biochemistry topic. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Boghog and Ajpolino Yes, please add to Biological roles section. Just don't trip over each other. I was going to expand, using Present Knowledge in Nutrition 10th edition, but will work on the other shortcomings first. As per order of sections, please do not move Biological to top of article. For most of the vitamins, Function precedes Biology, the reason being that the majority of readers are more interested in function. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Biology is (in part) function. The first paragraph of what is now labeled "health effects" is in fact function/mechanism (as already pointed out by Canada Hky above in "Specific comments", fifth bullet point) and should be relabeled as such. The only exceptions are the second and third last sentences of this paragraph which are misplaced were moved to the pregnancy section. Placing function before health effects makes it understandable why folate has the health effects it does. The current "biology" section is a mishmash of topics including biosynthesis, metabolism, and function. Boghog (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The current health effects lead paragraph provides a high level cellular/physiological overview of function. I split biology into what I think are more descriptive and logical headings: (1) chemistry, (2) biosynthesis (3) metabolism, and (4) function (which contains a more detailed molecular description compared to health effects paragraph). I hope this is OK. These new sections should be expanded further. I will continue to work on this. Boghog (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have asked the GA reviewer to keep this on Hold for a week before continuing with the GA evaluation. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am still working through the initial bullet points (above). David notMD (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Thanks for your offer to help. I think I am finished editing for the time being (I will be busy in real life). The Function section I think could use some more work. If you could contribute to this or any of the other sections, that would be great. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Finalizing review

Thanks everyone for all of your work! I am going through everything now. As a bookmark to myself, I have reviewed through the "Cancer" section, with only minor edits, which I have completed myself. Canada Hky (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reference for the last section of the "anti-folate chemotherapy" section - about the substitution of folic acid for folinic acid causing side effects. Without a ref, it kind of feels like an anecdote. Canada Hky (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)  Fixed
• In the last section of "bioactivation", is that supposed to be "1C pool" or should it be "C1 pool". C1 makes sense as a position, but I can't find any appropriate context for 1C, and I don't want to assume it is a typo. Canada Hky (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)  Fixed
• In Dietary Recommendations, the section below the table - EARs has not been defined anywhere I could find in the text with search. AI appears in the table, but I cannot find the definition for that either.Canada Hky (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)  Fixed

I can't find any good source for the side effects caused by folinic acid except for databases (see for example metabocard HMDB0001354). PMID 14963199 states that folinic acid can reduced the effectiveness of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis treatment (I can't find anything specific about chemotherapy), but says nothing about severe side effects. Hence the statement about folinic acid side effects appears dubious and unless someone can provide an reliable source to support this statement, it should be removed. Boghog (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Since I cannot find a reliable source to support the statement, I went ahead and removed it. Boghog (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Fixed

1C is an abbreviation for one-carbon. I have adjusted the text accordingly. Boghog (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing reference checking and removing/replacing when refs do not pertain to the text.  Done David notMD (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Templated review per checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Thanks to everyone who contributed to this article. There has definitely been a lot of work done, and improvements made to the article. I appreciate the collaborative nature in which everyone chipped in and made improvements! I don't have a lot of comments to make about the items in the template, because I think everything has been addressed in the discussions that we have been working on over the past couple weeks!

   Pass/Fail:

Bioactivation

Is part of metabolism and thus IMO would make a good subsection of that. Biosynethesis would also fit there IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Metabolism is based on chemistry and therefore to understand the metabolism, you first need to define what is being metabolized. A logical flow starts with Chemistry (that defines the folate family of structures) → Biosynthesis (how its made) → Metabolism (how it is activated) → Function (what it does). Placing a short chemistry section before metabolism is not going to cause the earth to stand still. Boghog (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Biosynthesis could be considered anabolic metabolism. But please keep in mind that folate anabolism does not occur in humans and other animals. Boghog (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The article now has the following organization (with justification):

• Chemistry (a short section that defines the chemical scope of the folate family also defines the numbering scheme (especially positions-5 and -10) which is referred to extensively in Metabolism below)
• Metabolism
  • Biosynthesis (refers to substructures which have been defined in the chemistry section above.)
  • Bioactivation (the diagram assumes that chemistry section has already been presented above, note especially the R-group shorthand)
  • Drug interference
• Function

Boghog (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me User:Boghog. Agree chemistry is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If Chemistry really bothers you, we could rename it as Nomenclature. Please also note that folate is a primary metabolite and as such, it has not attracted much attention from synthetic organic chemists. Hence it is very unlikely that this section would ever include laboratory synthesis. Boghog (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Other possibilities are "Chemical nomenclature" or "Chemical scope". Boghog (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE, not "Nomenclature" or the other offered options. For non-chemists, "Chemistry" works just fine. Those readers can skip the dry-science parts and just go straight to the diseases and the purported perils of fortification. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Stroke and Cardio and Cancer

Both sections in process of being revised. As exist either citing old refs or missing more of the recent refs. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Stroke section replaced. David notMD (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cancer section replaced. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you introduce relative / adjusted risk, either via wikilink or appropriate text to put the numbers in a more proper context? Its not "I'm 10% less likely to have a stroke", it's 10% of the previous risk. Canada Hky (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Added sub-section on relative versus absolute risk. Revised Safety section. Still need to revisit Heart disease section. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Replaced Heart disease section. Please wait until after Friday before restarting the GA review. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Were does the ref say

"Neural tube defects are present in 0.035% of U.S. births. A one-third reduction would change that to an absolute risk of 0.023%, a 33% decrease in relative risk."

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The reference is positioned for the NTD percentage. The information about 1/3 reduction would mean absolute risk of 0.23% and relative risk of 33% is original research. It's mean as an example of the distinction between the two. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolute versus relative risk

I do not think we need a seperate section to explain this. Explanation can go in the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I amended what you added to the Stroke subsection to clarify that the example being used to explain risk is the Li article, and does not include the other two meta-analyses. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous and False Information

As currently written, this article contains false information that is potentially dangerous and may potentially cause harm to people who act on certain information. This preliminary note is to suggest collaborative discussion on amending this article rather than immediately making an edit. One of the problems in the worlds of food, health, and nutrition is that folic acid, folate, and Vitamin B9 are used interchangeably. That is false. They are not the same thing. Folic acid is synthetic. These things are not semantics. They are fundamental matters with ramifications for food and nutrition intake, along with different needs for various people and conditions. It is essential this article be made accurate, and I would prefer to see knowledgeable people discuss edits. Uberveritas (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that vitamin B9 is not folate? This ref appears to disagree.[1]

Folate is simply a naturally occurring conjugate of folic acid.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

New Talk topics go to the bottom of the page. Sources used in the article, particularly this authoritative source, explain clearly that folate is a generic term identifying the natural folate sources in food and in metabolic intermediaries, and as a synonym for folic acid, the synthetic compound. Both are identified as vitamin B9. Here is another review where the introduction and chemistry are displayed. Folic acid has to be converted into folate in vivo to become metabolically active, as explained in this review. If Uberveritas has a WP:SECONDARY source that presents a different case, you should bring it to this Talk discussion first for others to review. --Zefr (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That "authoritative source" does not say that "folic acid" and "folate" are synonymous. It says: "Folate, formerly known as folacin, is the generic term for both naturally occurring food folate and folic acid, the fully oxidized monoglutamate form of the vitamin that is used in dietary supplements and fortified foods." Thus "folate" is a broader term than "folic acid" according to that source. The word "building" can sometimes refer to a "skyscraper" but that doesn't mean they're synonymous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• see here. Oy. The OP is natural news stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In common usage people use the terms interchangeably. We can explain the minor differences within the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we agree that there are forms of folate that are not folic acid. It would be very easy for us to work that fact into the lead sentence. A zillion books and websites about dietary supplements recommend ingesting forms of folate that are not folic acid, because folic acid is not naturally occurring. Studies have also shown that folic acid is not as good as natural folate in preventing birth defects.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As folate is the broader term how about we move the article from "folic acid" to "folate" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support moving article to broader term which is "folate". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support for title as "Folate". --Zefr (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is all so incredibly wrong. Anythingyouwant you would've realized that the point you were trying to prove with the studies you linked was wrong if you had read it. And Zefr and Doc James I now understand that none of you has actually sufficient knowledge to be able to judge any of this.

The studies that Anythingyouwant shows compare Folic Acid (or Folate) to 5-MTHF(5-methyltetrahydrofolate) - to make it easy for all of you: is basically saying that a baked cake is more efficient as a dessert than all the raw ingredients used in that cake. This is pretty obvious. The article linked says that the used form of folic acid in the body is more efficient than folic acid itself - this is obvious!!! However, this does not mean that Folic Acid or Folate is toxic and ESPECIALLY NOT synthetic. You are making several basic mistakes here that simply show that none of you, despite your degrees, actually understands the basics! Folic Acid and Folate are the same things. Thinking that based on all of this alarmism created by people saying that these two compounds are different things and one is bad and the other one is good, you found that changing the name of the article to "Folate" would actually make it more correct gives away that none of you understands the principle behind it. This is so scary. When scientists actually start falling for social media campaigns. I please urge you to correct everything you've changed and make this clear. All of this situation is incredibly embarrassing and I can tell you that it has made several people laugh to see you all lost with something so basic. Please,

• Change the name of the article to Folic Acid again;
• Make the first sentence be: Folic Acid, or folate, .... - so that there are no confusions
• Include an explanation in the page with the title "Definition: Folic Acid, Folate" where the nomenclature is explained.
• Free the article of expressions like "Folic Acid is converted to Folate in the body" because this is wrong! There's no enzymatic or metabolic reaction. It happens naturally.

To support everything I'm saying please revise concepts as: organic chemistry nomenclature; definition of acids and bases; acids dissociation; and especially vitamins. Use any biochemistry book. Doc James I'm sure you still have some old pdf of a biochemistry book from your med school times, just open it and revise it. But change this because people do think that Folic Acid is an invention of pharmaceutical companies to rule the world and Folate is the holy compound sent by god in avocados.

I find this article somewhat confusing as currently written. It seems to support the "common usage" notion that folate and folic acid are synonyms. I agree that it is reasonable to mention that synonymous usage, but I don't think the article makes it sufficiently clear that they are two different substances. By "different" I mean that they are treated differently by the body. Folate is assimilated after treatment by enzyme action, while folic acid must undergo transformation by the liver in a less efficient process.[4] The potential health risks from accumulation of excess folic acid aren't present with folate.[5] In other words, ingesting folate-rich foods and ingesting folic acid have very different effects. On that basis, that article appears to be potentially misleading (and possibly harmful) in not emphasizing the difference between folate and folic acid. -- Freevito (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Gah there is so much misinformation out there. It is almost impossible to overdose on folic acid in food because you would have to eat so much you would probably just throw up; on the other hand supplements are the pure stuff and yes it is not hard to take too much. There is also a bunch of confusion out there between the very basic chemistry stuff (a salt with its ion and without-it), which are always designated "Xic acid" and "Xate" - see Acid#Nomenclature) and the (yes somewhat confusing) use of "folate" to mean the whole family of biologically relevant congeners of folic acid/folate -- and so folic acid is a folate under that 2nd meaning of "folate". Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• we should probably put an FAQ at the top of this page about the naming confusion. Namerism. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another piece of misinformation - sadly for us avocado-lovers, according to 'McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods' avocados aren't a great source - they only contain 11μg/100g of folate. Rowan Adams (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Folic acid is the artificial form of folate. Folic acid is not the same as folate. Folic acid causes precancerous growths particularly in the large intestine and rectum. 86.187.163.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In the article, two reviews identify folic acid supplementation as increasing risk of prostate cancer, but not other types. A subsequent review reported no significant increases for any type of cancer. David notMD (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Folic acid 5mg tablets are not uncommonly prescribed by psychiatrists for clinical depression. Such huge daily doses have led to rectal growths in their patients. 86.187.163.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The differences between folate and folic acid seem not to be so minor. Folic acid, but not other forms of folate, seems to significantly increase the risk of prostate cancer. Therefore I recommend a section clarifying the difference and discussing the controversy.

The folic acid and prostate cancer question is already covered in the cancer section, supported by two review articles from 2012 and 2014. No gain in adding a ref for a clinical trial from 2009. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Folic acid tablets cause precancerous rectal growths. Folate is not the same as folic acid; folate degrades easily; folate is not available in large dosages. Folic acid however is commonly available in huge doses and does not degrade or break down easily. 2A00:23C0:C384:BE00:30F9:3949:522F:64D1 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References to good reviews needed if this type of statement is to be added to the cancer section of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead sentence

It currently says: "Folic acid, another form of which is known as folate, is one of the B vitamins." I think it's silly not to add two words: "Folic acid, another form of which is known as folate, is one of the B vitamins, namely B9." If we don't think B9 is a sufficiently common term, then don't put in bold, but to say folic acid is one of the B vitamins without saying which one just looks kind of incomplete. Moreover, putting both "folic acid" and "folate" in bold suggests that they are synonymous, and I don't think they are. The definition section of this article is pretty clear that they are not synonymous. So I suggest this lead sentence: "Folic acid, another form of which is known as folate, is one of the B vitamins, namely B9." Put only "folic acid" in bold. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Folate gets 248,000 hits on google books[6]

"vitamin B9" 12,500

How about "Folic acid, also known as folate and vitamin B9, is one of the B vitamins." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I already suggested this: "Folic acid, another form of which is known as folate, is one of the B vitamins, namely B9." You haven't said what's wrong with putting only "folic acid" in bold. "Folate" should not be in bold because it's not a synonym of "folic acid", and "B9" should not be in bold because it's a synonym but not an especially common one. Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The terms folate, folic acid, and vitamin B9 are often used interchangeably / as synonyms. The wording I have proposed is more straight forwards. We list synonyms together rather than one in the middle of the sentence and another at the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Folic acid is the form which causes the issues around cancer. This is because it is widely available in 5mg tablet form for use by pregnant women. 2A00:23C0:C384:BE00:30F9:3949:522F:64D1 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence seems very clunky, especially when it says its known as b9 and then says it is one of the B vitamins. This really needs to be the other way around as it is jarring the way it stands. I much prefer the "is one of the B vitamins, namely B9" suggestion.147.147.48.252 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead sentence: "Folate, distinct forms of which are known as folic acid, folacin, and vitamin B9,[7] is one of the B vitamins." is perfectly clear. The key part of the sentence is "Folate is one of the B vitamins." The additional information fits better in the middle of the sentence. A less attractive version would be "Folate, one of the B vitamins, has distinct forms known as folic acid, folacin and vitamin B9." David notMD (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Restarting the GA review

As written, the neurological section does yet cover the question of folate and folic acid and dementia, nor evidence for lower relative risk for autism. And the Age-related macular degeneration sub-section reference is to one clinical trial rather than a review. These will be remedied, but at this point, asking that the review of the entire article commence. David notMD (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Autism added to Neurological disorders subsection. David notMD (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted the AMD subsection, as sole ref was to one clinical trial; no reviews found for the topic. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cognitive decline added to Neurological disorders subsection. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that folic acid, a synthetic form of the vitamin folate, is added to wheat flour in many countries to reduce the risk of infants being born with spina bifida and other neural tube defects? Source:supported by refs #35 (Map:Count of Nutrients...) and #36 (Atta 2016)

• Reviewed: Vel blood group

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Self-nominated at 04:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC).

• Doing... I'll do this one. Will get to it later tonight or sometime tomorrow. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Review: The article reached GA status on October 7. It is long enough and it is overall well sourced to WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Earwig detects copyvio but it is because the other website has copied from Wikipedia (see the "Contributors" section). All images are freely licensed or public domain. A spot check of several sources shows that they support the text and are not closely paraphrased. QPQ is done (thanks!). The hook is interesting and the main points of the hook are sourced. However, the statement that folic acid is a synthetic form of folate does not appear in the article, unless I've missed something. It will need to be added to the article with a source. Also, the entire "Drug interference" section is unsourced and needs citations. Thank you for bringing this important article to GA. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: text and ref added to Lead and to body of text for mention of being a synthetic. Working on the other query. David notMD (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: part-way there on adding references to the Drug interference section. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: added refs to the Drug interference section for valproic acid. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks! I'll check the references when I have a second today. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good. Approved SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Folate and folic acid

I concur with Zefr on this. The article, as it exists, adequately explains that folic acid as a supplement or fortification ingredient is converted to folate in the body. Adding details about the organic chemistry involved in the process in my opinion goes beyond what readers seek. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Folic Acid and Folate - SAME THING

I found myself searching for Folic Acid on the internet because I've recently seen many posts and texts online about mothers refusing to take folic acid supplementation as they believe folate and folic acid are two different things. In fact, there's even a published book "Informed Choices in Motherhood" by Fiona Lee, where one of the chapters is called "Folate Vs Folic Acid".

Once I read the first paragraph on Folate (also funny that is probably one of the few compounds that the editors here decide to advertise in its anion form) it was clear to me why people are getting so confused.

"Folate, also known as vitamin B9 and folacin,[7] is one of the B vitamins.[4] Manufactured folic acid, which is converted into folate by the body, is used as a dietary supplement and in food fortification as it is more stable during processing and storage.[8]"

The first sentence mentions Folate, instead of Folic Acid, which is silly as the compound's electroneutral form is clearly Folic Acid and not as an anion. And then when Folic Acid is finally mentioned in second place, in the second sentence, it is followed by a dangerous word misleading everyone: "manufactured".

And for those of you saying that this is not relevant for the readers, then try searching what modern mothers are interested in and what they actually search for. Folate and Folic Acid is one of the most asked questions about the compound according to google. It NEEDS to be CLEAR in this page. Also, it's just a matter of adding one more paragraph and changing some words - it's scientifically correct, even more, correct than the current description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulomspalma (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

We have 3 consumer-oriented review sources, US NIH, Drugs.com, and Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University saying 1) that folate exists naturally in some foods, and is the active vitamin in humans, and 2) folic acid is the manufactured dietary supplement - commonly used to purposely fortify foods during manufacturing - providing folic acid as a precursor which is converted into folate during digestion. Industrial synthesis of folic acid is a controlled process allowing precision in amounts to manufacture supplements or fortified foods. Once consumed in the supplement or fortified food, folic acid is converted by digestion and metabolism to the active vitamin, folate, explained in the Linus Pauling review here. Perhaps Paulomspalma could propose wording that improves clarity beyond the current first two sentence of the lede. --Zefr (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Zefr sure, as simple as: Folic Acid, or Folate, also known as vitamin B9 and folacin,[7] is one of the B vitamins.[4] Folic acid, which spontaneously becomes folate in the body, is also used as a dietary supplement and in food fortification as it is more stable during processing and storage.

Adding "Folic acid" at the beginning of the first sentence introduces an incorrect definition because folic acid is not one of the B vitamins. Folic acid is a precursor, so doesn't become folate - a B vitamin - until folic acid is converted in the body to folate. Don't see how your rewrite clarifies, but rather causes a factual error. Since we're trying to improve clarity for everyone, let's try something simpler, and ask for the input of other editors, such as Doc James, David notMD, and SpicyMilkBoy. --Zefr (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Zefr this is one of the annoying things about Wikipedia, having to discuss basic things with people without knowing their accreditation. I don't know what kind of degree you have, nor what subjects you've studied, but I can assure you that Folic Acid is vitamin B9 and Folic Acid is not a metabolic precursor of anything since it's actually the same as Folate just in a different state. And if this is not clear to you or anyone, then I suggest that you reconsider your sources and try opening a biochemistry book. I'd suggest Lippincotts Illustrated Reviews for example, page 680-something of the 6th edition. Also, before deleting someone's edit to a Wikipedia article, I'd expect the editors to check the scientific background of the new text. Not everything new is wrong.

Also, if the reasons I mentioned above are not enough to make you see that people do believe that Folic Acid and Folate are two different things, and therefore the article should include the explanation of the proper chemical nomenclature in the paragraph about Definition:

Folic Acid is an organic, carboxylic acid. In organic chemistry, an acid is defined as a compound capable of donating a proton (H+). When this dissociation happens, the anion formed from the carboxylic acid is now called a carboxylate anion. Thus, Folic Acid becomes Folate once it loses a proton in a reaction that does not require any energy expenditure nor metabolic activity.

This is a natural, non-enzymatic reaction happening spontaneously in the body due to the body's physiological pH (circa. 7.4). When introduced into this slightly alkaline environment, carboxylic acids dissociate, losing a proton, and becoming anions.

Then the fact that not even yourself Zefr understands the difference, should be more than enough reason not to delete my edit.

This is not a good first sentence "Folate is the name of the anion created by folic acid when this one dissociates, loosing a proton (H+)." Plus no reference was provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Source says "Synthetic folic acid (pteroylmonoglutamic acid, PteGlu) has a fully oxidised pteridine ring and is a folyl vitamer with only a single glutamate residue conjugated to it. It is therefore very stable under the majority of conditions (i.e, temperature and pH), and is the vitamer used for supplements and food fortification (30)... However, since PteGlu is not a natural form of folate, it requires additional metabolic steps before it can enter the circulating plasma folate pool as 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-CH3H4PteGlu). In order to enter folate metabolism, PteGlu needs to be reduced first to dihydrofolate (H2PteGlu) and then to the active form, tetrahydrofolate (H4PteGlu) which is the methyl group shuttle required for the de novo synthesis of purine, thymidylate and methionine. This additional step is exclusively mediated by dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) (33)."[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring proposed lede sentence disrupted by Paulomspalma who doesn't sign their edits. --Zefr (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Folate, also known as vitamin B9, is one of the B vitamins. Folic acid – which is converted into folate by the body – is used in manufacturing as a dietary supplement and in food fortification because it is a precursor of folate with favorable ingredient properties.

First, editors at Wikipedia do not try to "pull rank" based on our own credentials or our experience as Wikipedia editors. Rather, we cite authoritative sources and reach consensus. Second, I earned a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have made more than 19,000 edits to Wikipedia over 10+ years, and was the editor primarily responsible for raising Folate to Good Article status. Third, Zefr has a PhD in Physiology and has been a Wikipedia editor for 14+ years. Fourth, you have been a Wikipedia editor for two days, and have not posted your science credentials on your User page. I stand by the article as written. While all articles can be improved, I disagree with the changes you have proposed. Therefore I support Zefr reverting your changes. Here at Talk is the right place to discuss differences of opinion (and of facts), but not a place to personally disparage editors who disagree with you. David notMD (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, last question and then I'm out. Zefr, David notMD, Doc James Do you all agree that to say "Folic Acid is vitamin B9" is a "Factual Mistake" like Zefr says?

No, we use reliable sources, US NIH and Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University which define that "folate is the generic term for the vitamin" (NIH), and folic acid is the synthetic, "fully oxidized monoglutamate form of the vitamin that is used in fortified foods and most dietary supplements" (LPI). Clear enough for the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Zefr The sources you have provided make absolutely no sense. Following standard organic nomenclature, the only difference between folate and folic acid is a proton. Both can be isolated from natural sources and both can be synthesized in a laboratory and neither is both are conjugated with glutamate. Apparently folate has a specialized meaning within the field of nutrition, but this definition is imprecise and at odds to how it is defined within the field of organic chemistry. This article should contain both definitions. Boghog (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Boghog -- you last edited the article under Bioactivation 2.5 months ago, and have the opportunity to be constructive now for the lede sentence by offering a clear edit that complies with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #8 using a general user-friendly source. I don't see how the LPI summary on Function/Metabolism doesn't meet this need, but trust you have the ability to make it better. --Zefr (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I weigh in on the side of NOTTEXTBOOK #8, because I am willing to bet that >90% of the readers coming to this article are interested in folate as an essential nutrient, and folic acid as the form used in food fortification and dietary supplements. More organic chemistry explanation may be appropriate for the Bioactivation subsection, but not the lede sentence, or for that matter, the lede. David notMD (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a variety of definitions in use and these definitions somewhat conflict with each other. This will confuse at least some readers and hence we owe it to the reader to point out what these differences are. The logical place to cover this is in the definition section. There are at least three distinct definitions of folate:

• Within the field of organic chemistry, folate refers to the conjugate base of folic acid.
• Within the field of biochemistry, folates refer to a class of biologically active compounds related to and including folic acid.
• Within the field of nutrition, folates are a family of essential nutrients related to folic acid obtained from natural sources whereas folic acid refers to the manufactured form that is used as a dietary supplement.

Boghog (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Paulomspalma (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) This discussion makes no sense! For Christ's sake, nobody is asking you to add or edit in something outrageous, it's probably the only thing we should all be sure about because it's a basic!!! What's the deal with calling it Folic Acid and explaining that Folate is simply a conjugate??? And David notMD I'm sorry but what you said is exactly the reason why I decided to start this argue: nobody is asking you to bet on anything! No one cares if you think users are more interested in Folic Acid as a vitamin or not. The fact that you decided not to include the name Folic Acid in this article, because you believe it could be more clear, is the reason for all this mess and why people are getting confused. If the purpose of this page is to be a non-biased source of information about Folic Acid then start by saying that Folate is just an anion! - and I truly don't understand why would 3 people with PhDs be so afraid of saying this??? You're not providing correct information and you're actually causing a problem due to your personal biased judgment because YOU believe that people want to hear the word FOLATE and meanwhile everyone is getting scared of FOLIC ACID. I don't know what the deal is with nutritional biochemistry but I assure you that organic chemistry is way broader and therefore Folic Acid IS VITAMIN B9 and FOLIC ACID is not a metabolic precursor of FOLATE. And Zefr the reason why people study is so that you can go beyond the books, so stop with that nonsense of "your sources" "my sources" "the world's sources" because this is something, if you're that obsessed with linking a citation to it, that you can justify with a chemistry book from 10th grade!

Per Boghog's comment, I am open to more information being added to the Definition section. And again, enough with the disparaging remarks about other editors. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the definitions section describing the partially conflicting definitions of folate and folic acid that are used in different fields. I hope this is OK. It is interesting to note that within MedlinePlus, conflicting definitions are also given. The first distinguishes between folate and folic acid. The second treats them as synonyms. Boghog (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Folic acid allergy

Folic acid and folate are absolutely NOT the same thing. I cannot process and am subsequently allergic to folic acid, but have no problem with folate from food sources such as chicken livers or spinach. KLM

The science literature, primarily case study reports, confirms the existence of rare cases of allergic reaction to folic acid, including anaphylaxis. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Folic acid in Leeks

Had a packet of leeks said "High in folic acid" looked it up at USDA says no folic acid but has folate, sent the information up to my commander. Ah all those B vitamins! We will blind the Americans with their own science strokes cat

--31.185.158.120 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Folate tests section? (serum vs. red blood cell)

Anyone want to add a section on folate tests (serum vs. red blood cell)? I understand the serum test is cheaper but the RBC test can detect more unusual things. E.g. Folate: A tale of two tests. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)