|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Recent studies section claims: irreversible inhibition of G-6-P enzyme. Is this refering to G6PD (dehydrogenase) or glucose-6-phosphatase? I'm assuming phosphatase, but it should be clearer. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
difficult to read
Am I just not getting something, or is this article written without regard to subject-verb agreement in number? For example:
Chlorogenic acid, are a family of esters of caffeic acid and quinic acid, and are a major phenolic compound in coffee, but is also found widespread ...
That passage isn't even internally consistent. It should either be "acid is" or "acids are," right?
Joe 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry should read: chlorogenic acid is a family of esters Scubafish 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
CGA in insects
somebody has any good info on how CGA acts in insects?
- Did you do a Pubmed search? Scubafish 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"Chlorogenic acid, is a family of esters formed between certain trans cinnamic acids and (-) quinic acid", but in the picture there is cis-cinnamic acid instead of trans!
cis-trans and what cinnamic acid are we talking about anyway?
The previous poster is absolutely right; the drawing is cis. But worse still, the drawing is (correctly) a caffeate ester, while the text talks about cinnamic acids. I think it unhelpful to refer to cinnamic acids when cinnamic acid usually means HOOC-CH=CH-Ph (see also cinnamate's Wikipedia page) without the extra phenolic hydroxyl groups found on caffeate. Why not call caffeate by its own name? I'm not editing the page as I'm not an expert on CGA, and might be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written and full of factual difficulties. The references are abysmal. For example, the article alleged to show the chlorogenic acid can reduce the incidence of diabetes cites a correlation between increased coffee consumption and lower incidence of DM2 in men only. No specific compound was tested. Further, it was a "self-report" study, meaning it was done by questionaire. Even if chloregenic acid per se had been implicated, the study is inherently flawed. Another article was from Reuters News Service, hardly a credible source of scientific information. The antiviral/antimicrobial references again are speculative and not confined to an investigation of chlorogenic acids. Further, the methods for these rather speculative articles (9-11) are laughable. The rest of the references are equally speculative and I hope the point has been made. Personally,I would pull it. P.S. A great part of this article was taken from the following link: http://www.greatvistachemicals.com/herb_extracts/chlorogenic_acid.html, which is a "Health Supplement Site." Thus I suspect this article is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebe1951 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the biomedical material. Well intentioned editors add such material and it just builds up in many articles over time. Such content is discouraged in Wikipedia unless supported by highly authoritative references.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of biomedical material... the health effects section in particular is so jargonized that I would need a degree in biomedicine just to figure out what the heck it is saying. Could somebody please translate it into plain ol' English for us regular people? This is Wikipedia, not a physician's reference book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)