|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
This compound is listed as both carcinogenic and anticarcinogenic. --Ccroberts 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure that it does. In introduction to the article, it lists it as a carcinogenic inhibitor, and then in the Pharmaceutical Uses section, it discusses that this acid was perceived to be carcinogenic, but has been shown to overall be anticarcinogenic. (If this has been fixed, then the "Contradiction" tag should be removed) --Person man345 9:45, 05 November 2006 (EST)
- The article says that it is carcinogenic in rats (because of bacteria present in a rat's gut causing carcinogenic metabolites?), so it should be stated that it is non-carcinogenic in humans, but carcinogenic in rats. --Mark PEA 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- there are lots of different cancers; what causes one may cure another 126.96.36.199 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Carbolic acid is an old name for phenol, which is technically an alcohol. Caffeic acid is a phenolic compound, a derivative of phenol, but not phenol and therefore not previously known a carbolic acid
In the carcinogenicity study, slightly increased incidences of forestomach papillomas were found in the sesamol- (15.8%), caffeic acid- (14.8%), catechol- (3%) and 4-MP- (11.5%) treated groups as compared with basal diet (0%), and a significant increase was observed with the five antioxidants in combination (42.9%, P < 0.001).M Hirose, Y Takesada, H Tanaka, S Tamano, T Kato and T Shirai (1998). "Carcinogenicity of antioxidants BHA, caffeic acid, sesamol, 4- methoxyphenol and catechol at low doses, either alone or in combination, and modulation of their effects in a rat medium-term multi- organ carcinogenesis model" (PDF). Carcinogenesis. 19: 207–212.
This simply contradicts the sentence in Pharmaceutical Uses, refering to this publication, i will change this sentence back to increase.--Stone 11:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I reformatted the references, it was a total mess. Please use Diberri's tool for scientific references: http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/
These are the old references.
1: <ref>[http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2003/january-03-MargreetOlthof.html]</ref> 2: <ref>[http://www.chemicalland21.com/fc/CARBOCYCLIC%20CARBOXYLIC%20ACIDS.htm]</ref> 3: <ref>[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcm.1290031207]</ref> 4: <ref>[http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/duke/chemical.pl?CAFFEICACID]</ref> 5: <ref>[http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2003/january-03-MargreetOlthof.html]</ref> 6: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct06/nuts1006.htm 7: <ref>[http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol56/03-caff.html]</ref> 8: <ref>[http://www.axxora.com/protein_synthesis_modification__degradation-ALX-270-244/opfa.1.1.ALX-270-244.1646.4.1.html]</ref> <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8799159]</ref> 9: <ref>[http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=26427]</ref> 10: <ref>[http://www.img.cas.cz/fb/pdf/2003-49-197-202.pdf]</ref> 11: <ref>[http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/1803?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=caffeic+acid&andorexactfulltext=phrase&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT]</ref> 12: <ref>[http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/761?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=caffeic+acid&andorexactfulltext=phrase&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT]</ref> 13: <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3139287&dopt=Abstract]</ref> 14:<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16081510&dopt=Abstract]</ref>.
Obviously the two hydoxyl groups that CAPE has which cimamic acid does not have are not part of the carboxylic acid group, but are rather attached to the phynolic ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Pharmacology section is still a mess. In particular, the text makes references to things that are not previously discussed in the article. For example, there is a statement that Caffeic acid "outperformed the other antioxidants" but there is no context given for this statement. I assume it is in the context of one of the references, but if so, that is not clear.