Talk:Phosphatidylserine

Importance in Apoptosis

This protein has an important role in apoptosis for phagocytosis. To expand this article, could explain the use. Rage italic 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I find scramblase and floppase too odd.... are they really scientific terms?72.27.92.131 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, biologists are funny that way.  ;) Rage italic (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be an important topic because this may be related to cancers and tumors. 128.214.78.192 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Substantial parts of the article, including almost all the intro text, appear to have been copied verbatim from other sources. In some cases additional editing was done since the original violation, but that makes the whole thing a derivative work, so even edited copied text had to go. The violations were from [1] and [2]. If anyone has evidence that these sources are available for use under the GFDL, then the text should be restored and a note added at the bottom of the article. This is a big step back for this article, but we'll just have to rewrite with original text. Vectro (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Soy products as a source

It is clear that commercially available PS products are extracted from soybeans, but there is no mention of the beans or other soy products in the "Dietary Sources" section, which strikes me as odd(?) Grant | Talk 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is because commercial PS is made by enzymatically converting soy phosphatidylcholine (lecithin) to phosphatidylserine, rather than simply purifying phosphatidylserine from soy.

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC) That's a horrible reason. Because there is a small amount of PS in (unpurified) soy lecithin, and that should be reported. Soy DOES have PS in it - just not that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the small amount of PS that is natively in Soy Lecithin is often skimmed from commercial products for resale AS PS. So commercial Soy Lecithin products may have even less than %3 of total phospholipids as PS.

Also, soy lecithin isn't a food.

47.18.164.105 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Soy is a food. We should remove the erroneous entry for soy lecithin, and replace it with an entry for soybeans.

Soy is about %2 lecithin, which in turn is around %55 phospholipids, and %3 of *that* is PS. So, 100g of soy has about 30mg PS. Drsruli (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Soy - derived PS dosage

When you say Soy-derived PS is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and is a safe nutritional supplement for older persons if taken up to a dosage of 200 mg three times daily

I found more appropriate to say that according to a trial, Soy-derived PS is a safe nutritional supplement for older persons if taken up to a dosage of 200 mg three times daily. There isn't any guideline to support this dosage. You just found it at a specific study which in the future may be proved wrong. 688dim (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link

Reference 9 is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechestudent (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sports Nutrition Section | Unreliable Sources?

The following user edit was removed from the live Phosphatidylserine page to the Talk section for discussion:

Apparently all of the studies showing benefits in sports performance with supplementation were published in the same journal, had a low number of subjects, and were authored by one or more employees of Increnovo LLC, which has filed for patents related to marketing of PS supplements and is partnered with Chemi Nutra, a leading producer of PS supplements

14:00, 13 May 2013 97.122.101.202

—

All three referenced studies were published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, a popular journal that features open access content that is readily available to the general public (paywall free) . I can only suspect the nature of the access and familiarity of submission process to be reasoning for publication.

The studies also disclose that the authors have no competing interests.

Chaseme (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

JISSN seems to be a "legit" journal, but it's not an old one nor is it a "good" journal (see for example its eigenfactor score). Also, open-access Journals have come under scrutiny lately due to some having lax publication standards. See for example this NY Times article. It's strange that all of the articles supporting the effectiveness of PS for sports would be published in the same journal, and that they would all have co-authors employed by a company that sells the substance. Stating that there is no competing interests is irrelevant if a competing interest is obvious.

The way that science is supposed to work is that results are reproducible. If this is real science, we would see articles in other journals with authors other than employees of a company peddling this stuff. 75.171.141.80 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the authors state in the article that Chemi-Nutra funded them. For example in their acknowledgments to one paper, they state, "The authors would like to thank Increnovo LLC, Milwaukee, WI, USA for funding the research and Chemi Nutra, White Bear Lake, MN, USA, for funding the manuscript publication." 75.171.141.80 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally, the other sources that were added by Chaseme seem (all?) to be simply references from the Chemi-Nutra funded JISSN articles. Some of them are impossible to find online, and even have the same typos present in the reference section of the JISSN article. For example "The Effects of Phosphatidyl Serine on Markers of Muscular Stress in Endurance Runners [abstract]"." The article as quoted does not exist, although the reference containing that verbatim title is in one of the JISSN articles.75.171.141.80 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"In athletes, phosphatidylserine has been shown to decrease muscle damage in athletes involved in cycling, weight training, golf and endurance running." I moved this part of the article here until someone can find the mentioned article. I could not find it myself in the database of the journal. http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/issuelist.aspx?year=2000 VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Memory and cognition

"Although a preliminary study in rats indicated that the soy product was as effective as that of bovine origin ..."

A total non sequitur. Needs to be rewritten. ---Dagme (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if it's just my interpretation, but it seems like the first two paragraphs in the 'Memory and Cognition' section contradict each other. The FDA gives "qualified health claim" status.... And then in paragraph #2 says there's no study that indicates any benefit. If paragraph #2 is correct (there's no indication of benefit) then why did the FDA give this 'qualified health claim' status? Am I reading this incorrectly, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.58.125 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. FDA designation as a "Qualified Health Claim" does not mean that the claim has qualified, i.e., met minimum standards for a health claim. What QHC status means is that the evidence is not sufficient to support a regular claim, and hence any company making a claim for phosphtidylserine and cognition needs to use EXACTLY the wording the FDA has (begrudgingly) allowed. The FDA created QHCs years after the health claim process started as a sort of limbo to park supplement ingredients and functional foods with weak or inconsistent evidence. Rather than be potentially limited by QHC wording, supplement companies often never ally for a claim, and instead default to what is allowed as Structure:Function wording. An example in this case would be "Phosphatidylserine supports normal brain functions."David notMD (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

PS content in oysters?

If you google oysters Phosphatidylserine you can see some supplement companies are thinking of making PS from oysters, but can anyone find the amount of PS in boiled canned oysters?

93.106.23.7 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PS DHA Conjugate. White Beans the only good natural non-meat/fish source of Phosphatidylserine?

Which sources of Phosphatidylserine (PS) contain high amounts of PS-DHA Conjugate?

Is supplement (softgels etc) the only option? Or does eating meat, fish or White Beans work?

Is White Beans the only good natural source of PS for a person who does not eat Meat or Fish?

ee1518 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Animal Brains" is the answer to your first question. DHA does not occur in plants. Fish that are also high in DHA, such as Mackerel and Herring, may also work.

Supplemental PS is derived from Soy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pathway for viruses to enter cells?

The lede mentions "it is a key pathway for viruses to enter cells via apoptotic mimicry," but there is no elaboration on this in the rest of the article.

This Wikipedia reader would like to know more about the implications of this. Could taking a phosphatidylserine supplement facilitate a viral infection, even to a slight extent? 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:4028:95D4:6004:610C (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

I seem to have accidentally messed up the infobox for it to not be on the side. If anyone could fix that, that'd be great! Thanks and sorry! Clairebookworm — Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — It was Special:Diff/1028409457, which moved the lead section above the WP:SHORTDESC and WP:CHEMBOX templates, which I've reverted. (As far as I see, there were no other changes in that edit.) The shortdesc and infobox templates should be at the top of the wikitext, with the lead section below them (MOS:ORDER). —2d37 (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)