Talk:Gluten/Archive 1

Gluten toxicity and "Gluten-Free" foods

This section is a turkey , makes little sense and makes claims that the references don't back up. I'm refering mainly to the "indicating a selective evolution for toxic motifs" section. The references in the Lancet and JI are nothing more than interesting observations that are taken out of context in this article.

Finally, gluten is not "toxic" per se, intolerance to it is the result of an autoimmune response, not any direct effect of the gluten protiens on the gut. Kantokano 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A March, 2015 PBS special "Brain Change" features Dr. David Perlmutter, a practicing, board certified neurologist, who cites gluten as a promoter of inflammation in the body, and the brain in particular, and cites it as a cause of brain damage including Alzheimer's disease. Presumably fact-checkers at PBS did their homework before engaging him for a 90-minute special and if someone with access to the literature can cite support for Perlmutter's contentions, this thesis should be added to the article. Perlmutter also cites sugar and carbs as similar promoters of inflammation. Frankatca (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite Perlmutter's physician-scientist credentials, his reputation is tarnished by preposterous exaggerations and frequent misrepresentations of data, such as the ludicrous concept that gluten causes brain damage in Alzheimer's disease. The PBS interview is opinion only, and comments he made are mainly unsupportable by peer-reviewed science and WP:SECONDARY sources. It should not go into the article. --Zefr (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Origins?

working at the Pike Place Market today a customer came by and asked if wheat in Europe contains gluten, I answered it did but after his next comment I had to take to the wiki. This man had been told that wheat has been cross-polinated with tumbleweeds during the depression. Can anyone shine any light on this for me, and is there any validity to his statement? Feb 26, 2007

American wheat and tumbleweeds are Not exactly cross pollinated according to Texan author and historian C.F Eckhardt, but they do have a history together. You can read about it in the following link (look under tumbleweeds): http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Aliens-Amongst-Us.htm[1]Wellesradio 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio

All wheat contains gluten, but the composition of the protein fractions in the gluten might differ.--Joel Markgren (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

History & Extraction

The two sections overlap. I find nothing in "Extraction" that is not already said in "History." There the stated activities of the Bhuddist Monks apparently are suppostitious; I can find no reliable authority as support. Does anyone object to removing "History" completely and adding its scanty verifiable content to the "Extraction" section? Wugo 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I am moving the scanty informational content of "History" to "Extraction" and eliminating "History." I have been unable to verify the story of the inventive monks.

Wugo 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says: "If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing to the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.". I read this multiple times, but it didn't make sense. It seems to say that when gluten (not starch) is the target product, a saline solution is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the start; and when starch (not gluten) is the target, pure water is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the starch (sic). Should the wording in the final sentence be changed to "impurities *remain with* the gluten"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.16.255 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Allergies and intolerances

To some extent the article conflates allergy and intolerance ... I'm certainly no medical person, but I believe there is an important distinction to be made regarding the body's allergic response (histamines, and so on) and the immune response of the celiac.
- Scrafford

I agree... an allergy is a specific response (raised histamine levels) to the allergic agent. Coeliac disease is not an allergic response to Gluten and I propose this article is edited accordingly. CustardJack

Done. As far as I know, what people call "allergy to gluten" is really celiac disease, which most definately is not an allergy. I've fixed this now. Also, I'm pretty sure spelt is fine for people with celiac disease - the page on spelt seems to think so. I changed the last line in the article to reflect this, but it'd be great if an MD could weigh in on the subject. --Eirinn 09:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The page on spelt is wrong as far as I know. I'm gluten intollerant and have always been told that spelt is off limits. Just my two cents

everday more and more people are asking for gluten free products, I am certain the information they are receiving is incorrect,, just as spelt is off limits.. spelt,epeautre,dinkel (the same grain) is water soluble. however I would not advise anyone with celiac to use it,¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catweasel (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From looking around on the net it appears that spelt (and kamut) are bad for people with celiac disease (but not as bad as ordinary wheat it seems). I've updated the page to reflect this. --Eirinn 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to mention differing levels of gluten sensitivity instead of jumping straight to cœliac disease. The last paragraph of the main section only mentions cœliac disease and it comes off as if all gluten sensitivity is under the umbrella of cœliac disease. Samewordberger (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reference to non-cœliac gluten sensitivity be removed? See http://www.businessinsider.com/gluten-sensitivity-and-study-replication-2014-5 for details. -- Resuna (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We'd need an appropriate secondary source (i.e. a review article in a peer-reviewed journal) citing the study to include it here. If you give WP:MEDRS a read, we typically don't use primary sources when it comes to scientific research here, and especially not for health content. Give it time, and once we do have an appropriate source, that would be the time make the change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648697 (cited in the article I linked)? Edit - never mind, I see the distinction, though in this case it's unfortunate that this can't be used... since this is a followup study by the authors of the original study debunking their own work. -- Resuna (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meannt not using the source as being unfortunate? I read your reply as it being unfortunate that they debunked their own previous work at first, which didn't make sense to me. I definitely agree with the the recent study as a scientist, but as Wikipedia editors we can't really assign proper weight to the study until it gets cited in the secondary literature. I don't imagine it would take long though since the study got a lot of attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified. -- Resuna (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Terminology problems

From Coeliac disease:

Maize (corn), sorghum, and rice are considered safe for a patient to consume. They contain types of gluten that do not trigger the disease.

This contradicts this article, which states:

No gluten is contained in rice (even glutinous rice), wild rice, maize (corn), millets, buckwheat, quinoa, or amaranth.

It appears the word gluten is being used in two different ways.

The applicable definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary is:

3. The nitrogenous part of the flour of wheat or other grain, which remains behind as a viscid substance when the starch is removed by kneading the flour in a current of water.

Further to this, the American Heritage Dictionary (which is known for using corpus linguistics and combining prescriptive and descriptive elements) gives the following definition:

A mixture of plant proteins occurring in cereal grains, chiefly corn and wheat, used as an adhesive and as a flour substitute.

This article defines gluten as "composed of the proteins gliadin and glutenin". This is a definition which appears from my research to be a common one among food scientists and celiac patients, but it is not the usual dictionary definition. I can find many cases of the broader definition in present use; for example, there are agricultural by-products called "corn gluten meal" and "rice gluten meal" which are used as animal feed. Also, the OED notes a historical precedent:

1876 HARLEY Mat. Med. (ed. 6) 371 Oats contain a larger proportion of gluten than any of the other cereals in use.

Comments? --Dforest 16:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget corn gluten as herbicide! There is clearly a distinction between the modern scientific meaning of "gluten" as spelled out in the article and what's been loosely called gluten in the past ("the stuff that makes dough sticky" back to the 18th century) and the recent present ("corn gluten"). This article very much should mention the different use of the terms, as the confusion leads to incorrect conclusions (for example, is corn gluten bad for celiac patients? No, not at all -- people avoiding gluten can eat all the corn tortillas they want, like I did yesterday for lunch.) But thanks for raising this question; I'm fairly new at the gluten-avoidance game, and myself was puzzled by the other uses of "gluten". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

--- inconsistency between this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-free_diet regarding whether kamut is or is not gluten-free (i.e. acceptable in a gluten-free diet). I have no idea what the truth might be.

visitor - Scott Carter

Kamut is wheat, and thus has gluten. However, for some reason, it appears to be suitable for people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Just an FYI: whet, rye, and barley are angiosperms and therefore have fruit NOT seeds (seeds are restricted to gymnosperms). I have thus corrected the two places I found where you used seeds instead of fruit. TheBryologist (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI: The paragraph above this one is 100% incorrect on its face. Angiosperms definitely have seeds. Also, there is no confusion among plant scientists or cereal breeders about what gluten is. It was not something "loosely called gluten in the past", I am not going to edit this article, it is mostly accurate, but I would urge food scientists and gluten free evangelists to get on board with the naming convention for these types of proteins, because it has existed for a couple of centuries, and it is confusing to scientists who study endosperm in the grasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.93.5 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Factually incorrect, medical misinformation

"Some varieties of wheat, including kamut and spelt, naturally have low contents of gluten.[12] The gluten in spelt is more fragile than that found in ordinary wheat, so dough made with it collapses when overkneaded.[13] Many gluten sensitive people can tolerate these varieties, but those with coeliac disease should avoid all food containing wheat derivatives.[citation needed]"

In fact, people with GSE who are CD- should avoid all Triticeae glutens, no matter the source, it is unclear whethere people with idiopathic gluten sensitivities should avoid rye and barley, and people with wheat-allergy-sensitive rheumatoid arthritis may be able to avoid exascerbating disease eating rye bread. The last sentence should be deleted.

"Rice (even the so-called glutinous rice) contains no gluten, nor do wild rice, maize (corn), millet, sorghum, buckwheat, quinoa, or amaranth. (the latter three being broad-leaf grains, and not true cereals).[citation needed] Oats and teff have no native gluten, but are sometimes contaminated by milling with equipment also used for wheat or other cereals."

There is no debate, this is incorrect, the current popular definition has no place in encyclopedia that strives for accuracy. Glutens are the seed storage proteins in plants. There are four groups:albumins, globulins, prolamins and glutelins. Each group is composed of many members. Oats have prolamins just as wheat and the dominant prolamins in oats are similar to the omega-glaidin component of wheat.Pdeitiker 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) The issue of definitions was taken from a chemical point of veiw and not all points of veiw, this confusion is cleared up below.Pdeitiker

Pdeitiker, I am removing your requests for citations because the statements are sufficiently supported by the internal links within the sentences in question.

No they are not, review the literature on glutens and then correct these errors.

It would be most helpful to have a concise list of the errors you've discovered.

Fact, it is incorrect, in fact dangerous to encourage people who have gluten sensitivity to eat Triticeae glutens until the cause of that sensitivity has been determined. Not all gluten sensitivity can be defined by celiac disease, celiac disease is a specific clinical definition which involves the capability of the clinician as well as the disease advancement of the patient. It is the equivilent of encouraging people with a family history of lung cancer to smoke. Companies have been threatened with lawsuits for exactly such statements. This misinformation needs to be nipped in the bud, so to speak.

Fact the seed storage proteins have been defined and are not limited to either grasses, cereals or the grass tribe Triticeae. This is a common misconception. Any seed that contains albumin, globulin, prolamins or' glutelins contains gluten. On review the glutens referred to outside of wheat are the sticky or prolamin like proteins,this appears to be a central consistency in all definitions, based on the meaning of the word . In keeping with some level of consistency albumins and globulins should only be treated as essential components when they sufficiently copurify with gluten.Pdeitiker Basically glutens are dormant proteins in seeds that reactivate when hydrated by water and cause a seed to sproat. In principle they have nothing to do with bread or beer making. In principle it is the sticky proteins that give gluten its name so . . . . .

You've quoted paragraphs but not singled out your reasons for objecting to their content.

The whole paragraph is in error. If references cannot provided, then by wiki standards it should be deleted. The references you have provided are not from scientific journals and I can assure you I can provide scientific journal references that discuss the glutens from most of the mention examples that 'contain no gluten'. If this is such a difficult problem for you to repair I can replace the entire section. {cn} replaced. The problem has been fixed by placing appropriate items under appropriate definitions that support them. Pdeitiker

Do you, for example, maintain glutelins are found in grains other than those from the grass-related plants?

Logical error. The statement does not say glutelins, and a gluten is made up of any of 4 classed of proteins. Glutelins and prolamins are an abitrary subdivison of a single class of proteins. In some species of Triticeae the homologous proteins are alcohol soluble.

Pdeitiker, you are not signing your comments so I'm not certain which is yours. And interspersing them with mine makes the reading difficult. Let's do this systematically, one problem at a time. First the citations. You seem familiar with the subject, so you should add the ones you think are best. Please go ahead and do it, there's no reason why you shouldn't. Once that's done, we should talk about the gluten definitions. (I'm assuming you're the author of that section of this Discussion.) Wugo 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Gluten

20. Brown, A., Understanding Food Principles and Preparation, Second Ed., Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, pp. 402-403 and 420-421, 2004.

Meaning of the Term "Gluten". There is no single definition of the term "gluten". [From the US government]

Strict Definition

The term "gluten" refers to a specific complex of proteins that forms when wheat flour is mixed with a liquid and physically manipulated, such as in the kneading of a bread. [Source US government] The complex is composed of all four classes of 'glutens' but the structural components are made up of prolamins and glutelins, and in fact with prolamins three distinct classes of proteins, alpha, gamma and omega gliadins- contributed by different genomes (AA,BB and DD) make up the largest group. Note a page on gluten (wheat) already exists. Protein extracts include over 200 proteins with similarity to other proteins in many other plants.

"Technically", rye nor barley contain gluten. For example rye requires an additional step, acidification, to activate its glutens, and barley cannot for bread because of the low level or protein. So that the technical definition is of little use unless you are discussing bread making.

..If this is the case, I must then ask, why is there an article titled Corn gluten meal? Weasel5i2 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Medical definition

Gluten in one context of medical treatment is an artefact of gluten sensitivity in the subclass of coeliac disease. It pertains to, in the order of significance, wheat, rye and barley. This type of gluten is specifically defined on the wiki page Triticeae glutens already exists and makes clear its definition. As it just so happens the three cereals with poisonous glutens fit nicely into a predefined taxa. The immunochemistry is defined on Gluten_sensitivity#HLA_class_II_restrictions of gluten sensitive enteropathy (which includes coeliac disease) is also defined.

Note: the medical definiton of gluten is only as precise as the immunochemistry. If tomorrow a new food grass appeared in Bromeae or Aveneae that had similarly toxic glutens the medical definition would be extended to cover those new CD causing glutens. Alternatively if it was shown the barley (pure) was free of toxic glutens it would be removed (over a decade of ranchorous discussion). What defines purity- serological approaches and thorough feild inspections. What defines reactivity- other than ambiguous biopsy results, T-cell assays and immunochemistry.

Note:Allergies to wheat albumins and globulins are also considered gluten allergies even though these allergies extend, often, over broad taxa. The medical definition of gluten is for clinical application of treatment, the Gluten-Free diet. A gluten-free diet that is strictly gluten-free (by the strinct definition) can contain rye and barley, therefore the strict is not being used.

The sentence "Allergies to wheat albumins and globulins are also considered gluten allergies..." doesn't jibe. Per the Triticeae glutens article, albumin is one of the four seed storage proteins in wheat, rye, and barley; but that article indicates that the promalin and glutelin proteins are the components involved in gluten sensitivity. But per the Mayo Clinic article on the causes of wheat allergy, all four can cause wheat allergies (with a distinction made between a food allergy and a food sensitivity). Per the Mayo Clinic article on food allergy, a food intolerance (e.g. celiac disease) is a food sensitivity but not a food allergy - though an individual may be both sensitive and allergic to a food. For example, a person may have celiac disease and also be allergic to wheat. I believe that this clarification would clear up the statements regarding a gluten-free diet (which contradict the gluten-free diet article and US FDA GF labeling guidelines. A wheat-free diet is designed for people with wheat allergies; a gluten-free diet is designed for people with gluten sensitivity.Penelope Gordon (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Similarity (Structural) Definition

Glutens are defined by genetic relationships (Homologs) within plant phyla, which extends over the common seed producing plants, but especially cereal grasses. These definitions are in wide use in the literature. These definitions are largely based on the components of glutens within seeds of plants, most of which evolved from common ancestral seeds. For example the gamma gliadins in wheat are ancestral to omega and alpha gliadins. Though by definition none would be recognized as glutens, strictly, or gliadins in that ancestral species. In fact the prolamins contributed by aegilops tauschii strangulatum as a result of introgression into wheat (8000 years ago) are not recognized as terminologically as gliadins. but as A. tauschii prolamins and glutelins, none the less they are identical to that wheat subset.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr070123.html
Although, strictly speaking, "gluten" pertains only to wheat proteins, this term is frequently used to refer to the combination of prolamin and glutelin proteins naturally occurring in other grains, including those that have not been demonstrated to cause harmful effects in individuals with celiac disease (e.g., "corn gluten" and "rice gluten)

This definition is not restricted to both glutelin, prolamin but also includes albumins and globulins as cofactors. Gluten amylase is responsible for converting starch to sugar that allows a better rise, although amylase is now supplimented.

J Sci Food Agric. 1967 Sep;18(9):405-9. J Anim Sci. 1973 Dec;37(6):1351-5. J Anim Sci. 1974 Aug;39(2):335-7. Q J Med. 1978 Jan;47(185):101-110. J Chromatogr. 1983 Jan 21;255:219-38. J Mass Spectrom. 1998 Oct;33(10):1023-8. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Mar;71(3):694-703.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn.html Finding 8.The safety assessment-based approach is a viable approach to establish a threshold for gluten using currently available LOAEL data for celiac disease. An overall uncertainty factor should be estimated from the data and applied to the LOAEL to establish a threshold for gluten. Any threshold derived from this approach should be reevaluated as new research data become available. Available data are insufficient at the current time to use this approach to establish a threshold for oat gluten for those individuals with celiac disease who are also sensitive to oats. However, it is likely that a threshold based on wheat gluten would be protective for individuals susceptible to oat gluten.

When one uses the word [grain] gluten it is implicit that these are discussing the seed storage proteins (comparable to [wheat] gluten) of that plant.

Therefore if you want to discuss gluten in any of the various context it should be defined first. The error in this page from the beginning is that it does not define what specific gluten documentation it is refering to, so that we assume it is the general role. What the page should be is a calving of the definitions with appropriate links and scraping off the misinformation (such as, without references, the immunochemistry of oat avenins, spelt or kamut gliadins)

Another terminology problem

Re: "Wheat flour with a high gluten content is called "strong" flour, and is used for breads, whereas flour with a lower gluten content is called "soft" flour, and is used for cakes."

I have lived across Canada and high-gluten-content wheat has always been called "hard" not "strong".

I have editted as such.

---

Is Gluten suitable for vegans?

yes, it is strictly a plant-based protein source. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hard and soft are descriptions of wheat texture, not dough strength. Hard textured wheats can have strong or weak gluten on a continuous scale. Likewise, soft textured wheats can have strong gluten or weak gluten, but tend to have mostly weak gluten. Even in the soft wheats with strong gluten, the gluten tends to be weaker than most hard textured wheats.(I'm a soft wheat breeder)-- Edgeben (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)User:edgeben

Pet food recalls

Should we put some info about the pet food recalls here? It appears that wheat gluten is the culprit, with either aminopterin or melamine being the specific agent found on the wheat gluten. --zandperl 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia deals in facts, not news. Pointing out gluten and the suspect chemicals should wait until the connection is officially confoirmed. At this time the limited findings from necropsies suggest some other factor is the culprit. Wugo 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gliadin and Glutenin

As the Gluten article now stands, a reader might assume gliadin and glutenin are the names of two single proteins. In fact, both names encompass classes of proteins, grouped together because they have properties in common. I think discussing this complexity is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, so have not attempted it. If outvoted, I will accept the task. {Note: The "Further Reading" section includes sufficient data for the purpose.)Wugo 02:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gluten is a mixture of the proteins gliadin and glutenin. These exist, conjoined with starch, in the endosperms of some grass-related grains, notably wheat, rye, and barley. Gliadin and glutenin comprise about 80% of the protein contained in wheat seed.

The proteins in rye are called secalins, not gliadin, the proteins in barley are called hordeins not gliadin.

To read more accurately it should say:

Wheat gluten is a mixture of the proteins gliadin and glutenin cojoined in starch within the seed's endosperm. Both gliadin and glutenin are composed of many protein isoforms and thus comprise a complex mixture of proteins. Similar glutens, secalins and hordeins, also exist in the cultivated grains of rye and barley, respectively. (See also: Triticeae glutens).

(Optional) Oats also have a forms of gluten, avenin, that is similar to certain wheat gluten components.

Gliadin and glutenin comprise about 80% of the protein contained in wheat seed.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Pdeitiker 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If "Gliadin and glutenin comprise about 80% of the protein contained in wheat seed.", is the other 20% considered Gluten as well, or is it "non-gluten wheat protein"? twfowler (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Assessment

I have assessed the article to a B level for the WikiProject Food and drink. Overall it is a decent article but certainly needs some work and expansion to bring it to the next level. Here are some suggestions that you should consider before submitting it for GA status.

• Expand all single line paragraphs or combine them with other paragraphs where they fit
• Avoid phrases such as "so called" which is used in the lead paragraph, such phrases lean toward bias
• Under "Extraction" the use of the word Legend is not an appropriate word usage, it should be rephrased.
• Work on grammar in the article, some parts could be written better for ease of understanding

I hope I have corrected some of this.Pdeitiker 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Are there non-food uses for gluten?

Gluten is used in school paste and gluten hydrolysates are used in cosmetics. Gluten is also used as an agent in the making of soaps and other personal hygeine products. This is already covered in Triticeae glutens. Pdeitiker 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Organize the usage section a little bit, perhaps using smaller headings to deal with certain baking topics, the section seems a little jumbled this is partly due to the usage of many single sentence paragraphs and the list incorporated into the center of the section.
• Under occurrence the phrase "wheat and closely related cereals like rye and barley" should not be a full link, and as the link goes to an article that is unrelated to any of the specific words, perhaps the phrase in the linked article needs to be worked into this article to make the link make sense to those who do not understand gluten or cereals.

This has been repaired. Pdeitiker 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe you could expand upon the actual "extraction" process under that heading.
• The lead could be expanded a bit further to include a summary of everything in the article, this may help get rid of the lingering single sentence paragraphs.

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher- Thank you for the rating and, expecially, for your commentary. I shall begin incorporating your suggestions. I used Legend because the story is frequently repeated, with no source ever cited. I haven't been able to validate it either, but I don't doubt the story. Wugo 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we add something in here about gluten substitutes (for bread, etc.). Is agar a possible substitute? talk 2:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 (talk)

Non-food products with gluten

Elmer's finger paints. Traditional wheat pastes (often used in schools) Traditional soaps (See Korres Wheat Soaps) It is not uncommon for moisturizing creams and soaps to contain gluten [2] www.celiac.com lists the following as possibly containing gluten Lotions, creams and cosmetics (primarily for those with dermatitis herpetaformis). Stamps, envelopes or other gummed labels. Toothpaste and mouthwash.Pdeitiker 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

List of gluten containing products not for consumptionUser:Pdeitiker 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

I reformatted the refs as per WP:REFS using the citation template hoping to make a more readable layout. I am not sure it is any better. Triwbe 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pruning Proposal

This article is intended to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and should be kept within that scope. Gluten pathologies have been extensively discussed in a series of articles listed in Gluten sensitivity and should only briefly mentioned in this one. Unless someone disagrees, I shall substantially reduce this article's discussion of celiac disease and other sensitivities. Wugo 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See Coeliac disease.

Second notice. The pruning will begin shortly. First I will unite and reorganize the sections titled "Occurence" and "Glutinous Cereals". Objections and suggestions, please.Wugo (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have greatly reduced the Adverse Reactions section. If you think I've gone too far, please review the Gluten sensitivity articles then restore as you see fit. Wugo (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gluten in ice cream

(Discussion moved here from User talk:Socrates2008#Gluten in ice cream)

Hello, Socrates- I'm trying to find a supporting reference for use of gluten as a stabilizer. Do you know one? I found a list of other uses at http://www.iwga.net/04_app.htm but no stabilizing.

Still looking, Wugo (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found lots of references, but not a reliable one yet - will keep looking too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference you supplied does not support the statement. It gives me an idea though: Let's look up lists of foods prohibited to celiac patients; they should include foods with gluten added. Wugo (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Read the Beware List at http://www.celiacsyndrome.com/index.php?id=14 Wugo (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I that agree with your summary that the reference does not support the statement about gluten as a stablizer in ice cream. The author states: "Even foods not thought of as baked products, like ice cream and catsup, often contain small amounts of gluten or wheat flour added as thickeners or stabilizers."

Prohibited foods is a good idea, but bear in mind that people with gluten intolerances might read this - i.e. you don't want to publish incomplete info that might cause someone to eat the wrong thing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This is a fairly subtle example of the way food faddists and hucksters have learned to subvert Wikipedia to advance their own interests. Sentences like, “Enough of the human population suffers from gluten sensitivity of one kind or another that many foods are now labeled to clarify whether they contain gluten“ are questionable. “Enough” is hardly a scientific term. Further on the article claims that 0.5 to 1% of the population has celiac disease, a figure I believe to be five to ten times the actual number, closer to 0.01%. [I wish it were easier to comment here.] JohnFMayer (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) John Mayer

'Enough', in this context, denotes a threshold. It simply means that the coeliac population is equal to or greater than the number of people necessary for companies to label to their needs.--THobern 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oral Sex claim probably trolling

This section is probably someone having a bit of fun: "Known examples occur when people share silverware or other eating instruments. There have also been confirmed reports of cross contamination through oral sex. Doctors have warned that this is possible for as many as 30 days after a person ingests gluten containing products. People known to be allergic to gluten often cite this as an area of "extreme frustration". [19] The source cited says no such thing (the link is dead, but the article is available elsewhere), and the gluten-in-semen report is probably fabricated, as I've found only a lot of debate and doctors suggesting that semen is too refined to maintain large protein molecules like gluten in it, but that as far as they know, no studies have been done. Mind you, it seems gluten can transfer through breast milk, so one never knows, but unless one's sensitivity is extreme it's unlikely to be an issue (or, as someone on Yahoo Answers said, "unless you're gonna be downing the stuff like Crystal Light,I wouldn't worry too much"). In any case, without evidence it should be removed.184.175.3.229 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Are advertisements actually permitted here?

The link under "Sources" and the link for "The Gluten Effect" are clearly nothing but blatant advertisements. I would remove them, but some jerk would probably just put them back. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not permitted. See WP:REFSPAM. I posted subst:welcomespam to the Erichealthnow's talk page and removed the reference. I believe a similar link in Further Reading qualifies as WP:BOOKSPAM, so I have removed it as well. Kullanari (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheat starch redirects to here

Hello. Why is wheat starch redirecting here to gluten? It would be better to redirect to starch, as gluten and starch are pretty different.

lg --Crotha 11:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well:

1. You are correct about the redirect. Wheat starch was directing here but now it is going to Starch.
2. You are also correct in saying that "gluten" and "starch" are pretty different, if by "pretty" you mean "completely".

Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Spelt

I would like to know how I have read that Spelt(English),Epeautre (French),Dinkel (German)

gluten is water soluble and here I read it is not. More importantly it will be a response to my spelt bread customers of which I make my living from Catweasel (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit.------- Being insoluble in water,-------- they can be purified by washing away the associated starch.

Perhaps spelt, if it is water soluble, paves the way for those that have celiac disease. As it seems the problem with those that have celiac disease stems from digestion because the wheat is not water soluble.Catweasel (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what changes to the article you are trying to suggest here. Do you have references for any of the statements here? Because if you do and they are reliable sources then we can change the article. (I have never seen any scientific literature stating that the gluten in spelt is soluble in water, but I haven't finished reading all of the scientific literature yet.) If the gluten in spelt is soluble in water then that implies that the composite proteins must be other than gliadin and glutenin which then calls into question whether it is really gluten at all. If you are merely curious then you can conduct your own test by trying to make gluten by washing spelt dough (the entire ball of dough should dissolve if your hypothesis is true), but if you are trying to suggest updates to this article (which is the sole purpose of this talk page btw) then you will need scientific references. Cheers, Dusty|💬|You can help! 14:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

discovery of gluten

the lede describes gluten being discovered by buddhist monks. per http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-gluten.html this Buzzle article. I don't think this source really meets RS, the site kinda looks like a wiki in that the articles are contributed by non-vetted authors. any opposition to removing this bit/retag it with a citation needed?Jonathanfu (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Protein in Gluten

Is the protein in Gluten a complete protein? Many grains have incomplete proteins (the amino acid "profiles") in contrast to milk (cow juice)for example. I was wondering how the amino acid profile compares with whey isolate protein.....

Thanks

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:9200:32:491C:CFCC:C551:46A4 (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Article's emphasis makes gluten sound like an additive or byproduct

This whole article seems heavily biased in that it makes it makes it sound like gluten is primarily some sort of additive or food byproduct, rather than a basic component of certain grains (correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here). The reader could easily miss or lose sight of the basic facts about gluten's role in human diets--it's a part of certain grains and it is therefore a part of almost any food made from these grains.

For example look at the fact that "extraction" is at the very top of the article and also that it is followed by "uses: in bread products". Gluten is found in bread products because it is a part of bread because it is a part of flour because it is a part of these grains, right? So, except for the part on "added gluten" this should be called something like "function of gluten in bread-making", not "use of gluten in bread products".

This is just one example...there are issues throughout the article and bigger questions of balance/organization. I suspect this apparent bias is unintentional but it should really be fixed (by someone who knows a lot more than me!). I did change "found in foods processed from wheat and related grains" to "found in wheat and related grains".

Someone tell me if I'm totally off base here...there seems to be some confusion in the sources about whether "gluten" is "gluten" when its still in the grain, unprocessed. 146.115.132.122 (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disgusting picture

This "duck" really looks like mock...has it been predigested by a cow or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.24 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Gluten's importance in human diet

There has been much emphasis recently on people who have various problems with gluten in their diet. I think the article reflects this concern.

Is there any broad general statement that can be made in the lead of this article about the importance of gluten in the human diet, historically and currently? (I'm assuming that any such statement would be suitably qualified that gluten is a problem for some people.)

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Autism link?

Does gluten have any link to autism? 85.76.129.115 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Only if you are vaccintaed with it whilst not wearing your tinfoil hat.12.11.127.253 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Trying to understand this

Quoting the article: "Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch."

I'm paraphrasing this. Please tell me if I get it right. (I'm not suggesting my wording is better, just trying to find out if I understand this.)

"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains." --> "Gluten is the combination of a gliadin and a glutenin. It is found, along with starch, in some grains. Gluten is not starch and starch is not gluten. But they are found together in grain."

"The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. --> I'm puzzled here, is Prolamin another name for Gliadin? Is "wheat fruit" a synonym for "wheat endosperm"? And what is the other 20% of the protein that is NOT gluten?

"Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch." --> "Gluten can be separated from starch by grinding grain and dissolving it in water. The part that does not dissolve is the gluten." Does the other 20% of the protein dissolve?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you came by. The scientific/medical aspects need expert attention. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still trying to grasp what is wrong in the part I quoted above, "Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains." It now seems that this sentence (which covers various grains) is incorrect, that in fact only wheat contains gliadin, whereas other grains contain other types of prolamins. Can someone confirm this? CBHA (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What is gluten free diet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.166.89 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-GI symptoms of NCGS

“foggy mind”, fatigue, fibromyalgia, joint and muscle pain, leg or arm numbness, tingling of the extremities, peripheral neuropathy, dermatitis, atopic disorders, allergy to one or more inhalants, foods or metals, asthma, rhinitis, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, schizophrenia, autism, ataxia or attention-deficit disorders.

Extracted from the article as fringe topics per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Zefr is oversimplifying the non-gastrointestinal symptoms of NCGS.

This list of symptoms do represents "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

However, I accept simplifying. This version is the most summarized, without distorting the information.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I add that there are other users concerned by the fact that it talks of NCGS. This topic has already been discussed twice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine:

• Gluten-free diets and autism Opened: Revision as of 07:43, 8 November 2015 and archived: Revision as of 03:18, 4 December 2015
• Non-celiac gluten sensitivity Opened: Revision as of 03:23, 14 December 2015 and archived: Revision as of 03:38, 25 December 2015

Also, I have talked with Jfdwolff, who is an administrator and a member of WikiProject Medicine:

User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 37#Coeliac disease

"BallenaBlanca Around the time when the CD article became FA, another editor wrote lots of immunology content into other articles. It is still a hugely controversial area where some vociferously dispute the non-classical gluten-related conditions such as ataxia, whereas others accept these entities. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there is a dispute in cientific community about the gluten-related symptoms/disorders. The scientific literature is growing and providing more and more evidence in favor of these entities. But our mission in Wikipedia is to write from a "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Thus, if we reflect the controversy, I think there is no problem. It is necessary to give the reader all the positions so that he can make his own decisions.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca I agree. The extended gluten sensitivity conditions have extensive secondary sources in their support. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)"

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gluten/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article does not deserve B scale rating as it has numerous factual errors.Pdeitiker 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)CorrectedPdeitiker 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Gliadin & Intestinal permeability

Hi, I read that Gliadin, a component of gluten, interacts with Zonulin leading to Intestinal permeability (more significantly in sensitive people) and that this has a range of implications for health, in those who are sensitive. I'm not sure if this fits in with an existing section like gluten sensitivity. Perhaps a new sub-section under adverse reactions? What do you guys think? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_permeability#Modulation Zarkme (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zarkme: Sorry for the delay in answering. I added a section with a brief sentence [3]. I hope you agree, but maybe it would be good to expand it a bit.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Can you explain this, please? (→‎Increased intestinal permeability: OK, I am getting ready call this FRINGE and treat as such.)

Maybe you may want to check / adjust something, but again, I remember you we must maintain the appropriate content WP:PRESERVE.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE and follow them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem here?. Do you think this is fringe, or that the science is not settled on the matter? Is the problem with the Gliadin <-> Zonulin link, or with the Zonulin <-> Intestinal permeability link?

* Fasano A (Jan 2011). "Zonulin and its regulation of intestinal barrier function: the biological door to inflammation, autoimmunity, and cancer". Physiol Rev. (Review). 91 (1): 151–75. PMID 21248165. doi:10.1152/physrev.00003.2008.

* Rapin JR, Wiernsperger N (2010). "Possible links between intestinal permeability and food processing: A potential therapeutic niche for glutamine". Clinics (Sao Paulo) (Review). 65 (6): 635–43. PMC 2898551 . PMID 20613941. doi:10.1590/S1807-59322010000600012.

* Lammers, Karen M.; Lu, Ruliang; Brownley, Julie; Lu, Bao; Gerard, Craig; Thomas, Karen; Rallabhandi, Prasad; Shea-Donohue, Terez; Tamiz, Amir (2008-07-01). "Gliadin induces an increase in intestinal permeability and zonulin release by binding to the chemokine receptor CXCR3". Gastroenterology. 135 (1): 194–204.e3. ISSN 1528-0012. PMC 2653457. PMID 18485912. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.023.

* Visser, Jeroen; Rozing, Jan; Sapone, Anna; Lammers, Karen; Fasano, Alessio (May 2009). "Tight Junctions, Intestinal Permeability, and Autoimmunity". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1165 (1): 195–205. PMC 2886850 . doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04037.x.

Zarkme (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

sentence from lead

The following is nonsense:

Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value, as opposed to the grains of pseudocereals (gluten free), which are rich in proteins with high biological value (albumins and globulins).

Comparing a kind of protein from X to whole grains of Y is just silly. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but remember WP:PRESERVE [4]. Let's delete the comparison, but not the appropriate content properly supported by the source: "Though from a nutritional point of view, gluten exclusion does not entail particular problems, being a mixture of proteins with low nutritional and biological value"

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Biological value

These edits [5] removed this sentence "Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value." and added these two paragraphs:

Lead: "Gluten comprises 75% of total wheat protein and is a significant protein source of amino acids for human nutrition, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat food products are commonly consumed."

Bread products: "As the principal protein source in wheat, gluten contributes nutritional value to wheat food products, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat consumption is relatively high."

I agree to use these references to improve the information, but we must adjust. This reference states:

"The data in Table 4 support the widely accepted view that the first limiting amino acid in wheat grain is lysine with other essential amino acids being present in adequate amounts, at least for adults. The lower contents of essential amino acids in white flour compared with wholegrain relate to the high content of lysine‐poor prolamin storage proteins (gluten proteins) in the starchy endosperm. These proteins are restricted to the starchy endosperm cells, where they account for about 80% of the total proteins, and have unusual amino acid compositions with high contents of glutamine and proline and low contents of lysine (reviewed by Shewry and Halford 2002; Shewry 2007; Shewry et al. 2009a). This contrasts with the proteins present in the other grain tissues which are more lysine‐rich."

Gluten has low content in the essential amino acid lysine and therefore, it has a low biological value (see Biological value#Properties of the protein source), as stated in the ref ("From a nutritional point of view, gluten exclusion does not entail particular problems, being a mixture of proteins with low nutritional and biological value") and lower than the rest of proteins in wheat. We can not say that it is the most important source of protein in wheat from a nutritional point of view, but the most abundant.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the above analysis are as follows: 1) the quote from Shewry (2015) does not eliminate gluten's overall contribution of 11 amino acids to the diet, but rather is saying that the lysine content is less than optimal. This table from Shewry (2009), giving quantitative values for amino acids in wheat proteins (most of which is from gluten), shows whole wheat as an excellent source of amino acids compared to the FAO/WHO standards, i.e., evidence for wheat protein including gluten as a nutritious food source. Gluten is supplying most of those amino acid contents; 2) "low biological value" is only in comparison to other high-protein food sources shown in the table. Among all food sources, wheat has relatively high protein/amino acid value; 3) the Lamacchia reference cites no specific physiological evidence for "low biological value", an outdated, poorly defined and controversial measurement as presented here. There are no credible reviews supporting use of this term; 4) the current discussion on gluten as a significant source of amino acids for healthy human nutrition presented at the Wheat article should be duplicated here for balance. Summarizing, gluten is a) a valid, significant amino acid source from wheat as food for billions of people; and b) it causes serious adverse effects in a small percentage of the general population. The current article is heavily biased toward part b. --Zefr (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the ref, the paragraph above of which I quoted, you will see this:

The contribution of wheat to human diet and health

"Protein quality

Protein nutritional quality is determined by the proportions of essential amino acids, as these cannot be synthesized by animals and hence must be provided in the diet. If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet. Ten amino acids are strictly essential: lysine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, histidine, and methionine. However, cysteine is often also included as it can only be synthesized from methionine, with combined proportions of cysteine and methionine often being presented. The requirements for essential amino acids are lower for adults where amino acids are required only for maintenance, than for children where they are also required for growth.

This is a more recent review of 2015 from the same author (Shewry) than the other older ref you are mentioning, (Shewry 2009). And the continuous selection of wheat is increasing the gluten content, because of its unique viscoelastic properties, enabling the preparation of diverse nutritious foods such as breads, noodles, and pasta, which is what manufacturers demand. Anyway, in the table from Shewry (2009) we can see that both grain and flour are deficient in the strictly essential amino acid lysine:

[6] Recommended levels of essential amino acid lysine for adult humans FAO/WHO/UNU (expressed as mg g−1 protein): 45; wheat grain: 28 flour: 22

To achieve the neutrality and balance you are asking for, we must include a summary of these paragraphs. The higher the amount of gluten, which is deficient in lysine, the lower nutritional value of wheat. "If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet" And "other essential amino acids being present in adequate amounts, at least for adults" means that is not clear in children.

"Lamacchia reference cites no specific physiological evidence for "low biological value"" It is clear that the reviewers of Lamacchia's article are specialist and therefore aware of this fact, whereby, despite not including references, gave the article's approval. But we have the Shewry reference of 2015 to use instead, with a broader explanation.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

From the more rigorous Shewry references, we can acknowledge the "lysine limiting" effect qualitatively, but there are no quantitative data to confirm a deficiency effect on human nutrition and there is likely over-interpretation of the limiting effect because protein consumption via gluten does not occur in isolation, i.e., except in famine, the typical diet has varied protein sources allowing correction of gluten's lysine limiting effect. It would be misleading to state in the article that gluten in isolation has a negative impact on protein intake and overall nutrition. More here (although a poorly referenced article, likely because dietary metabolites like amino acid nitrogen are difficult to study in vivo), here, and here. --Zefr (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Sources and sub section

Hi,

The first source from FDA is from 2007, it would be best to get an updated version if available since many changes could occur during 10 years of period. The information of source 14, 15, 19, 21 seem to from blog posts and webpages that could be replaced by peer-reviewed articles. The link to source 51,52,53 does not work. Another section that could be added to this article is how gluten is detected. For example an overview of immunological and spectroscopic methods such as gas chromatography, mass spectrometer, ELISA, and commercially available ELISA kit.

Jei1 08:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeileee (talk • contribs)

Graphic comparing gluten to HIV

Comparative size of gluten vs HIV virus. Gliadin, the main cytotoxic gluten fraction, is able to cross both the intestinal barrier and the blood–brain barrier (BBB), and access any body organ or tissue. PMID 24365341

This seems irresponsible to me. The graphic purports to be showing the difference in size, but in effect it implies that gluten is innately dangerous and infectious.DolyaIskrina (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Moving image to here for discussion. The image gives a possible impression that gliadin is related to HIV, may be a factor in other neurological disorders, and freely crosses the BBB because it appears small compared to the HIV virus. BBB permeability of blood solutes is determined by numerous other factors, such as lipid-solubility, receptor mediation, and polarity. To include in the gluten Disorders section misleads to an unestablished conclusion and therefore is WP:SYNTH. --Zefr (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this paragraph belongs on this page

The occurrence of oat avenin toxicity depends on the oat cultivar consumed, because the immunoreactivities of toxic prolamins are different among oat varieties. Also, many oat products are cross-contaminated with other gluten-containing cereals.

It's not about gluten per se. It seems to me to be specifically worded to maximize the occurrence of the word "toxic". It belongs on the Gluten-free diet page. It definitely doesn't belong in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Gluten is toxic for people with celiac disease. Gluten are the proteins that can trigger celiac disease. Oats have gluten and can trigger celiac disease. Therefore, of course it does belong to this page. The problem is that it was not put in context, specifying to whom it can cause reaction, for which also it must be in the same paragraph.

Adjusted [7]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. "The occurrence of oat avenin toxicity depends on the oat cultivar consumed" is a passive construction that doesn't make sense. I can't parse the phrase "toxicity occurs." Are you trying to say, there is gluten in oats which can have bad effects on people who are disposed to have bad reactions to it"? Perhaps you have a level of expertise that makes this construction transparent to you, but I think for most readers it implies that oats are toxic. And why are you linking "oat avenin toxicity" to "oats" again? Are you intending to say that oats are toxic? Toxic, for the lay person, means poisonous to most people at most doses. It is my understanding that gluten causes an immune reaction in some people, and it is that reaction which has bad effects. And why is this in the lede? Do you think that the most salient thing about gluten is that it affects 1-6% of people in this way? This seems like undue weight. By that logic, I could go put "tree pollen toxicity occurs, causing seasonal allergy toxicity, sneezing, red eyes and itchy skin" in the lede of "pollen" when in fact it belongs in "allergy" with a link to "pollen" and should be re-written in accessible English.DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

further, my quick search of the sources did not yield the phrase "gluten ataxia" and once again, linking "gluten ataxia" to "ataxia" seems to me to be WP:SYNTH and creating a neologism. I also think implying neurological effects is too controversial to be on the "gluten" page and definitely too controversial to be in the lede. I do not see consensus for including this paragraph in the lede. Please remove it until consensus is reached DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If you do not find the term "gluten ataxia" I'm afraid it's a problem of how you do the search. In the reference number 10, "gluten ataxia" appears 21 times. And it is recognized in international consensus on neurology [8].

Per WP:MOSLEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

If we put it in context, there is no confusion. We are talking about people with celiac disease. In medicine we talk in fact of gluten toxicity [9] [10] [11][12] (celiac disease is not an allergy nor a simple intolerance), but we can replace it with cytotoxicity [13]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. You're right they use the term "gluten ataxia" 28 times. I overstated the case, however, the panel in the survey you cconclude that "gluten ataxia" shouldn't be used. Instead they say you should say "idiopathic sporadic ataxia with positive AGA." Since "idiopathic" means of "unknown origins" my understanding is that a panel of experts surveyed the literature and concluded that you shouldn't use the term or (i'm not as sure about this part) you shouldn't attribute the ataxia to gluten. At any rate, linking "gluten ataxia" to "ataxia" is to create a controversial association between the gluten and the symptom.DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misinterpreting the sources. They are talking about the evolution of the term and the knowledge of the disease. The term gluten ataxia is the name currently recognized.

Here you also have it explained: 2016 - Consensus Paper: Neuroimmune Mechanisms of Cerebellar Ataxias This is a more current source, from 2016 and the other one is from 2012.

This disease is known and has been studied since the 70s. Specifically, the first cases were reported in 1976. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating read. Thanks for the link. Ok I stand corrected. "Gluten Ataxia" is a thing. However it does seem to be an immune response not the gluten itself which causes it. In general the overuse of passive construction is making it hard for the lay person (such as myself) to understand these important points. I will be editing accordingly. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"However it seems to be an immune response not the gluten itself which causes it. This is a distinction that isn't clear in the article." We do not need to make any "distinction". The substances act provoking reactions / responses in the organism. This is the field that pathophysiology covers.

Although gluten ataxia is not an allergy, I am going to give you an example with allergies. Your reasoning is as if you said that milk is not the cause of milk allergy, or that peanuts are not the cause of peanut allergy ... because they are immune processes.

In the case of ataxia and gluten, the response is autoimmune, which is clearly specified in the article. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I get your example (and that it's not an allergy) but using your example, I would translate this sentence "Avenins cytotoxicity in celiac people depends on the oat..." to say "milk, like venom and chemotherapy, attacks the cells of people who are lactose intolerant" Right? Isn't that what cytotoxic means? It's not the milk (gluten) that is cytotoxic it's the immune and autoimmune response. The proper construction would be "when people with lactose intolerance drink lactose, they experience the following symptoms...." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"It's not the milk (gluten) that is cytotoxic it's the immune and autoimmune response." No, it is not correct. Gluten is cytotoxic. Milk (its proteins) is allergenic. But not for all people. The explanation on the page is correct.

PS: I'm afraid you're making a mess. Your example is not good either, the lactose "does not attack the cells". In the case of lactose intolerance, what happens is that there is a deficit of an enzyme, lactase, which breaks down lactose, so it can not be properly digested. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of this paragraph?

In home or restaurant cooking, gluten is prepared from flour by kneading the flour under water, agglomerating the gluten into an elastic network known as a dough, and then washing out the starch. Starch granules disperse in low-temperature water, and the dispersed starch is sedimented and dried. If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.

I'd rewrite it if I understood its reason for existing. Nobody sets out to make gluten anything. What this describes is baking. Are we describing kneading dough to an alien who did very well on the SAT? Using gluten free flour would be indistinguishable from this process. What does the paragraph have to do with gluten per se? The subsequent paragraph of industrial isolation of gluten makes sense to me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that what it is describing is actually wheat gluten (food). But I think it is confusing and contains inaccuracies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved and rearranged it [14]. What do you think? Does it make more sense? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But is it correct that "gluten forms" at that point? I'm having trouble distinguishing between glutenins, glutelins, avenins and gluten. And in general I wonder if that's a level of pixelation too far for the general reader. PS, I don't know if it's bad form for me to backseat edit with you like this, but I don't mind. It seems to be making the article better. I'm assuming we are on the D of BRD.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, "gluten forms" in that context does not make sense and is confusing. We have to review it but now I do not have more time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Is gluten toxic?

I'm drawing out a discussion I've had on this page because I think we need consensus on this question. On this page gluten is said to be cytotoxic which to the average lay reader means that gluten is in and of itself poisonous to most people at most doses. The cytotoxicity page refers to spider and snake venom as well the the chemicals used in chemo-therapy.

But the source do indeed say "gluten toxicity"

It's true that the sources refer to "gluten toxicity" but my reading of those sources seems to show that they are using that phrase as a shorthand. In a similar way a physicist might say "water always chooses the shortest route" or "electrons want to move to the lowest orbital". Even though the physicists literally said "water chooses" "and electrons want" you would be guilty of WP:SYNTH if you said "physics proves water and electrons want and think."

But gluten has real toxic effects of patients with celiacs and NCGRD

Yes, but those patients are less than 10% of the population. Spider venom is toxic to 99% of the people who are exposed to it. Whatever the technical definition of toxic is, I don't think gluten qualifies in the same way as spider venom. My proposal. Every reference to the bad effects of gluten should be phrased to reflect the idea that gluten triggers responses (immune and autoimmune) in some people which have toxic effects.DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The variation in the percentage of people immune to a toxic substance, or that this percentage is "smallbig", does not make the substance non-toxic.

That a Wikipedia page is not complete and does not include all the information / examples, does not remove toxicity from a substance.

Your proposal "Every reference to the bad effects of gluten should be phrased to reflect the idea that gluten triggers responses (immune and autoimmune) in some people which have toxic effects" is inaccurate.

Gliadin causes cell damage directly, reducing cell viability (from 20% to 60%), leading to morphological alterations characterized by apoptotic findings and cytoskeletal injuries, and also activates zonulin signaling irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity, leading to increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules. PMID 16273608 PMID 16635908 PMID 14615062

PMID 26217073 See: “Besides the possible alteration of the immune system, gluten presents some peculiar biologic properties that induce intestinal damage(15). Different in vitro studies ...” 15. Elli L, Dolfini E, Bardella MT. Gliadin cytotoxicity and in vitro cell cultures. Toxicol Lett. 2003;146:1–8.

The toxicity of gluten has been known and studied for almost half a century. There are dozens of studies.

PMID 16273608 Since Hudson et al first observed the inhibited growth and morphological modifications in different human cell lines induced by gliadin exposure, a number of in vitro studies have confirmed the cytotoxicity of the peptide.

PMID 28810029 "Previous studies have shown that gliadin can cause an immediate and transient increase in gut permeability. This permeating effect is secondary to the binding of specific undigestible gliadin fragments to the CXCR3 chemokine receptor with subsequent release of zonulin, a modulator of intercellular tight junctions. This process takes place in all individuals who ingest gluten."

PMID 26217073 "The pathogenesis of NCGS is largely unknown, but a mixture of factors such as the stimulation of the innate immune system, the direct cytotoxic effects of gluten, and probably the synergy with other wheat molecules, are clues for the complicated puzzle." --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone else can weigh in on this too. In vitro studies are not always conclusive about what happens en vivo. Gliadin is cytotoxic, but it is just a component of gluten. Does saying "gliadin is toxic" equal saying "gluten is toxic"? Further, the literature does not read the way you would expect it to if the toxicity of gliadin were the answer to the question of "what causes Celiacs and related disorders?" Why all the talk of "the puzzle"? In this abstract toxic is put in scare quotes. And the whole issue of toxicity is framed in the brackets of [for those who it is a problem]:

"Although a number of studies have been published concerning the role of T cells in inducing intestinal damage, little is known about the early stages in which gliadin (the toxic component of gluten) starts the whole process. In vitro two- and three-dimensional (multicellular spheroid) cell cultures are a simple and useful means of studying the direct cellular effects of gliadin and other "toxic" cereal peptides. Furthermore, in addition to improving our understanding of pathogenetic mechanisms, cell cultures can also be used to test modified peptides that could replace the toxic components present in the foods that celiac patients must avoid.[15]""

If the relevant epistemic community doesn't think the answer is "gluten is toxic, so you shouldn't eat it" then our page shouldn't read that way either. The toxicity of gliadin might be a piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only issue. Which would explain why it's only a problem for a small percentage of people. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is slanted to a toxicity emphasis because it has been extensively edited and protected by an anti-gluten advocate. Other than acknowledging that gluten makes a small percentage of the population sick, all the evidence for toxicity derives from in vitro work - which leads to speculation about mechanisms in the clinical diagnosis - the description of which is unencyclopedic, WP:SYNTH. I removed in vitro content and sources from the lede, and moved the avenin discussion to the Celiac disease section. --Zefr (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina:, it seems like this edit from @Zefr: alleviates or addresses the concern? As far as "on this page gluten is said to be cytotoxic which to the average lay reader means that gluten is in and of itself poisonous", as long as the article is clear - for example now it says "in vitro studies on cell cultures showed that gluten is cytotoxic" - then I don't think people will generalize this to "it is poisonous". However, that statement is not cited - and I wish it was, with a specific page number (I like to use the Template:Rp for these). Ideally, it would be helpful to mention what cytotoxicity means in context - are other common food components cytotoxic? And there are numbers used to express a level of cytotoxicity such as notably IC50 (see What is the best term (IC50, CD50, ED50...etc) to express cytotoxicity?. Do we know the mechanism of cytotoxicity? It appears that the latest strand of "basic science" in this line of research would be something like Gliadin effect on the oxidative balance and DNA damage: An in-vitro, ex-vivo study (2019). A decent summary of in vitro research appears at Latest In vitro and in vivo models of celiac disease (2013). It seems to point to a humanized mouse with interleukin-15 overexpression as the latest. II | (t - c) 05:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Further on the issue of supposed 'cytotoxicity', after another look at the literature and WP:BRD, I removed content and a source PMID 26217073 based mainly on primary research and self-admitted conjecture about the cellular pathology in NCGS. As ImperfectlyInformed states, the non-science lay reader would interpret discussion of 'cytotoxicity' as 'poison in gluten foods'. A skeptical science reader would question the leap of interpretation from feeling sick due to gluten sensitivity to having cells poisoned, which of course is impossible to adequately demonstrate with clinical research rigor. Even among scientists, on one side are anti-gluten advocates who loosely use the term 'cytotoxic' when evidence is only from in vitro studies (disqualified from general interpretation; see WP:MEDREV), while others, myself among them, feel the article should remain neutral without alarmist exaggeration discussing gluten 'cytotoxicity'. --Zefr (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: please, provide verifiable secondary sources that comply with WP: MEDRS that support your arguments "on one side are anti-gluten advocates who loosely use the term 'cytotoxic'" "while others, myself among them". You have to argue with evidence and references. Your opinion is not relevant and it is not a valid argument for discuss in the talk pages WP:TALK.

You also said "when evidence is only from in vitro studies", but there are in vivo studies, in animal models PMID 29531885 “7.1. The Toxic 13‐mer Gliadin Peptide (aa 31–43) (…) To explore the in vivo effect of this peptide, Araya et al. have… . Anyway, in vitro studies can be cited, as long as this data is specified per WP:MEDANIMAL, and so I did.

You said here [16]:

"cytotoxicity is rare" Please, provide a ref that says that is “rare”. Anyway, being "rare" does not imply that there is no such cytotoxicity. In medicine, 1-2% of affected people is not considered a "rare" disease, just the opposite.

"rv in vitro sources as primary and contrary to WP:MEDREV" See the refs you deleted [17]. All are secondary sources which comply with WP:MEDRS (and off course also with WP:MEDREV):

• Elli L, Roncoroni L, Bardella MT (2015). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: Time for sifting the grain". World J Gastroenterol (Review). 21 (27): 8221–6. doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i27.8221. PMC 4507091. PMID 26217073.

• Fasano A (Jan 2011). "Zonulin and its regulation of intestinal barrier function: the biological door to inflammation, autoimmunity, and cancer". Physiol. Rev. (Review). 91 (1): 151–75. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.653.3967. doi:10.1152/physrev.00003.2008. PMID 21248165.

• Leonard MM, Sapone A, Catassi C, Fasano A (2017). "Celiac Disease and Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: A Review". JAMA (Review). 318 (7): 647–656. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.9730. PMID 28810029.

You have also committed other irregularities, which I will correct and specify in the edit summaries.

Regarding cytotoxicity, I think the problem is that it is well specified that it only occurs in people with celiac disease. Let's see how we can write it so there are no doubts. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing

The reasons alleged by Zefr for the removals are "on one side are anti-gluten advocates who loosely use the term 'cytotoxic'" "while others, myself among them". In order to sustain such arguments, he needs to provide references. The personal opinions of an editor have no value WP:TALKNO.

After two weeks, he has not provided any reference supporting such claims discrediting the research that dozens of scientists worlwide have done for half a century. If so, Zefr would also have to provide notices that these multiple studies have been withdrawn.

The content was correctly referenced with WP:MEDRS sources. And Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSOR.

The problem with this information about cytotoxicity is that the reader knows that it is in the context of celiac disease. So what I have done has been to rewrite the text so that there are no ambiguities and adding new references, in a separate section on pathophysiology. I hope this solves the problems.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the burden of verifiability is on the editor wishing to include controversial and speculative content - you; WP:BURDEN. The Pathophysiology section is surmised from in vitro studies, so requires that context in presentation. --Zefr (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"the reader knows that it is in the context of celiac disease." I'd like to add that this does not seem to be the case to me. It seems to me to be written in the most alarming way possible while still being technically correct. "In the context of celiac disease, gliadin peptides are classified as toxic or immunogenic.[27][28]" To the lay English speaking reader this sentence has the effect of saying "gluten is toxic." The participle "In the context of celiac disease" is a passive construction that doesn't convey much meaning. "classified as toxic" again to the lay reader is not clear. What does "classified" mean? The paragraph should follow the general shape of "research has found that one component of gluten can have a toxic effect in vitro. Some hypothesize this might be one of the factors that leads to problem for people who are predisposed to react to gluten." Much less alarmist and also correct. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the edit by Zefr [18]. Only a few minor adjusts [19] [20] [21]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I also restored this sentence, which seems to have been deleted by mistake and so, the definition was missing; I added "in vitro" to adjust it [22]. And I added a reference already present, which was missing here, and adjusting a term to the source [23]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Text removed by Zefr: [24] Zefr, this is not a primary source, but a Review that complies with WP:MEDRS PMID 29531885. The content also complied with WP:MEDANIMAL and was brief and encyclopedic. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence removed was unencyclopedic content, and the rest of the section on pathophysiology wavers on it. A review of primary research is still a weak-MEDRS source. WP:MEDREV says: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." --Zefr (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The extract you are citing does not apply in this case. This source PMID 29531885 is secondary, is a review (and the secondary sources obviously review primary sources). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca and Zefr:, I reverted removal [25] - is this finding of pathophysiology actually controversial or cutting-edge? And maybe I'm wrong but I find that a lot of the pathophysiology is based on animals and for most studies in humans researching the underlying mechanism isn't the main agenda. The article itself cites back to a 2005 review for its claim that "The adaptive immune response specific for celiac disease consists of a Th1‐mediated mucosal immune response of gliadin‐specific CD4+ T cells with a particular cytokine pattern (IL‐10+, IL‐2low, IL‐4−, IFN‐γ+)" which is quite a while long ago and suggests that this isn't controversial. II | (t - c) 00:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed: The article is about gluten which is a benign non-issue in ~ 98% of people, yet there is a prominent disorders/pathophysiology section of speculation based entirely on primary lab research - a review of primary research, although becoming a secondary source, is still primary information and not convincing; see my comment three entries above and WP:MEDREV: "avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments." The section as existing is over-prominent and lacks WP:BALANCE because one editor wants to persuade about the (possibly unreplicable) pathology of gluten shown only in lab studies. This section is premature to discuss and is unencyclopedic. It might be fine for a book review, but disqualifies on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6. --Zefr (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ImperfectlyInformed. There is no controversy. In fact, celiac disease has been used as a model to study and understand autoimmune diseases for years because it is the only one with a known etiology, with a clear environmental trigger identified (a permanent intolerance to gluten)., etc, etc, etc ... At this point of the advance of knowledge, no scientist, no doctor in the world doubts about it, nor there are any doubts that gluten can produce villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia and increased infiltration of the epithelium with lymphocytes in people with genetic susceptibility. These findings in duodenal biopsies are currently classified according to the Marsh scale. The withdrawal of gluten from the diet gets their normalization.

We must remember that WP:UNFAMILIAR, WP:LACK, WP:TASTE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:DLS and WP:DLC are not valid grounds for deletions.

It's like pretending to erase the page on milk allergy because milk "is a benign non-issue" and only affects between 2% and 3% of babies and young children. Or the pages on peanut allergy (1-3% of the population), soy allergy, shellfish allergy, etc. Or the hundreds of sections of pathophysiology, etiology, causes or research of Medicine pages of Wikipedia. By the way, the figures that Zefr provides are not correct. He forgets / ignores that non-coeliac gluten sensitivity affects 6-10% of the general population.)

He is also misrepresenting the policies on reliable sources, trying to argue that a secondary source is not valid because it is "a review of primary research" so "is still primary information" (¡?) But let's see what WP:MEDDEF says:“A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.” --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Intestinal permeability

I'm removing the section and image as these are theories and conjecture from lab research that mislead the non-science reader to believe there is impending pathology upon consuming gluten, possibly for everyone and certainly - as stated now - for those with gluten sensitivity, although these effects cannot be determined in human subjects. The quote used in PMID 28810029 [ref 27] is speculation and unprovable in vivo, and the authors acknowledge this. As stated in their JAMA review under Specific Events in Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity Pathogenesis, "The pathophysiology of nonceliac gluten sensitivity remains largely undetermined," indicating this is a weak MEDRS source - at the bottom of the evidence pyramid (left) in WP:MEDASSESS - and cannot be used to discuss increased intestinal permeability as a certain outcome. The image from outdated 2011 PMID 21248165 concerning zonulin is pure conjecture, and misleads the reader about gluten-related additional disease mechanisms (autoimmune disorders, cancer) currently impossible to clinically assess or define. Use of this source and the image is alarmist, not based on rigorous evidence, and misleading in its attempt to persuade there are serious disease risks which remain unproven.

Revising from the article, the subhead should read Potential for increased intestinal permeability (since it does not occur in 99% of people, and no pathological permeability can be proven in vivo if it occurs in gluten-sensitive people)

Gliadin activates zonulin signaling in people consuming gluten, but most people do not experience adverse effects.[27] Zonulin potentially causes increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules in people with gluten sensitivity, and may lead to intestinal inflammation.[27]

References 69 and 70 should be deleted because they are outdated speculation derived from lab research. Please refrain from edit warring and let other editors comment on whether this section has merit. --Zefr (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not "alarmist", not "shown only in vitro", but a lack of knowledge of the editor

This edit by Zefr ('alarmist', shown only in vitro and at high doses, are of relevance unconfirmed) is based on WP:UNFAMILIAR and WP:LACK.

That the editor does not have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject does not justify the reversion.

It is not "alarmist", it is a fact. No scientist, no doctor or pathologist in the world questions it.

Zefr ignores that these damages are perfectly described and classified for years, since the beginning of performing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies (currently classified according to the Marsh scale).

• A loss of villous height is considered to be pathognomonic for coeliac disease by many clinicians (...) Oberhuber et al67 proposed a grading as mild, marked or total. An absence of atrophy implies that the villi are of normal height. Mild atrophy indicates a minor to moderate amount of villous blunting; marked atrophy indicates the presence of truncated villous remnants; and finally, total atrophy implies the complete absence of villi.67,81
• The Marsh grading system outlines four categories of lesions associated with coeliac disease: pre‐infiltrative (type 0), infiltrative (type 1), infiltrative‐hyperplastic (type 2) and flat‐destructive (type 3) 70; the atrophic‐hypoplastic (type 4) lesion appears in later publications.88,65 This system of grading assesses the presence of an immune response in the epithelium and describes the degree of architectural changes in the mucosa. This classification was revised to facilitate diagnostic applications,42,67,89 as the Marsh–Oberhuber grading system,90 which subcategorised type 3 lesions based on villous height as type 3a mild atrophy, type 3b marked atrophy and type 3c total villous atrophy.89 This classification is widely used by pathologists today.90

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References