Talk:Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

Merge?

A complete merger would seem to taint the information with a commercial bias. Filgrastim is a product that a profit-motivated company is attempting to sell, whereas G-CSF is a chemical produced within the body. Filgrastim should, however, be mentioned under a subheading of the general G-CSF article, with the subheading title "Therapeutic Applications" or some equivalent.

I don't think that the article G-CSF should be merged with filgrastim. In fact, structural description and mechanism of action of (naturally occuring) cytokines should be separated from (genetically engeneered) cytokines produced by drug companies, in order to avoid bias. Same for eg GM-CSF and sagramostim.

I'm not worried whether a product of a company, especially a drug has it's own page provided that it is listed by its generic drug name. If we are calling G-CSF the physiological chemical, and there is a separate generic drug name, I think it better to reference to those drug names in the text, have seperate articles for them and treat them like Wikiproject: Pharmacology articles and have the molecular biology on its own page. i.e. G-CSF is a topic about the molecule and filgrastim is a drug that has been made to immitate GCSF's action (even by exact duplication). That would mean having Rx. as a passing note on the molecular biology page. If, however, the two were truly synonymous, say blood product human Factor VIII:c as a drug preparation (I don't know if this has a generic drug name.. haven't checked) then I think they should be introduced as the molecular chemical and then subheaded with Therapeutic indications etc. further on, where the drug can be introduced. I have made a comment in the suggestion box of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Proposals, as I am concerned that this is going to happen time and again in recombinant drugs. If anyone wants to pass comment, I guess you could throw in your two cents there too.Markjohndaley 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They should be merged, with the naturally-occurring substance as the main article, and the drug as a section within the main article. 68.49.208.76 03:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. There are multiple GM-CSF drugs with distinct characteristics. --Arcadian 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I favor merging, in the same way that e.g. Procrit is on the erythropoietin page. This page is referring to G-CSF specifically, not GM-CSF (e.g. Leukine). Andrew73 12:32, 1 September 2007

I oppose the merge. G-CSF (the cytokine) should have a distinct page. As previously mentioned filgastrim and other recombinant G-CSF therapeutics should be listed, but the G-CSF article should be distinctly academic as opposed to pages about proprietary forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedPop34 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

The needed citation

I think I found the source of the information regarding the effects of G-CSF on the bone tissue: http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8512.html

Found

... in the "References" section without an antecedent:

“ Welte,K, et al., Purification and biochemical characterization of human pluripotent hematopoietic colony-stimulating factor. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. USA 82, 1526–1530, 1985

Metcalf D. The colony-stimulating factors and cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 20, 425-434, 2010

”

Not sure where they should be cited. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

clinical comparison with GM-CSF for neutropenia

A form of G-CSF was compared to a form of GM-CSF

- as a treatment of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. - Rod57 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discovery ?

The metcalf-1985 ref for discovery is about GM-CSF - The abstract does not mention G-CSF but I dont have access to full text. Not sure how to ask for better source. Can someone quote the mention of discovery of G-CSF from metcalf-1985 ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)