From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


i see how it is produced, but shouldn't what cell type produces also go in that section? Tkjazzer 22:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done (I think). --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


The section on medical uses states that efficacy of calcitriol for psoriasis is inconclusive, and cites a 2006 reference, but there is an exhaustive study I found in PubMed that gives solid numbers supporting its use both topically and orally for this indication. Full text here: I would update the article and add this reference myself, but I don't know how to add a reference. Does anyone feel like taking this on? I've been pointed to the pages on how to add citations, and I could not make sense of them. I just don't get it. Leha Carpenter (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I changed the wording of the previous sentence and added mention and footnote for the review paper. I am unaware whether any VDR-ligand analog has been approved for this indication, so did not remove the other information.--Robert.Allen (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


vitamin d is responsible for bone mineralisation. it does increase ca2+ serum levels but not by getting it from out of the bone... parathormone activates those osteoclasts —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This question is already addressed in the article based on information from the standard biochemistry textbook by Voet & Voet. Robert.Allen (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

osteoclast are not from osteoblast[edit]

osteoblasts come from osteoprogenitor cells, whilst oestoclasts are from monocyte/phagocytic cells. Thus they are from different cell lines. osteoblasts turning into osteoclasts is an outdated view from the 1970's. osteoclasts are from haemopoietic stem cells exposed to RANKL and M-CSF (Macrophage colony-stimulating factor) see: (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Histories merged to preserve attribution. Aervanath (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1,25-DihydroxycholecalciferolCalcitriolRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC) More common, more pronounceable, more understandable, and is the usual name as per the lead sentence in this article. Also "calcitriol" outnumbers "1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol" by 40K to 19K in Google Books. Facts707 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very ambivalent about this suggested move. It is not completely clear that calcitriol is the more understandable name, and the Google Books search results do not clearly indicate which is more usual. (Can you link your search?) The current name is found in two standard biochemistry textbooks: Lehninger. Principles of Biochemistry, 5th edition, 2008, p. 360, and Voet & Voet, 3rd edition, vol. 1, 2004, p. 665. (As an aside, Voet & Voet do include the "α", i.e., "1α,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol". Does Wikipedia have to write this out as "1-alpha,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol"? We might want to add a redirect for it and mention this in the article.) However, I note that the article on calcifediol currently uses the trivial name. At first glance I would lean more to changing the calcifediol article to 25-hydroxycholecalciferol for consistency rather than renaming this one to calcitriol. This would then make it immediately understandable that both compounds are just hydroxylated forms of cholecalciferol. Using the one trivial name for the vitamin might actually make things more understandable, since the other two trivial names do not reveal how the three compounds are related. In any case, the lead sentences should be rewritten to be consistent with whatever names are finally decided on. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A better argument might be made to base the names on this recommendation: [1], in which case we might want to edit all related articles (including vitamin D) to make them consistent with it. The recommended trivial names for D3 appear to be calciol, calcidiol, and calcitriol. What are your thoughts on this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your input. As you point out, vitamin D3 has a few forms, mostly depending on how hydroxylated it is:
calciol is another name for cholecalciferol (inactive in the body and unhydroxylated - it's hydroxylated in the liver to become calcifediol).
calcidiol is another name for calcifediol (a prehormone, active and hydroxylated, it is hydroxylated again, this time in the kidney, to become calcitriol). This is the usual form measured in a human blood test to determine a person's vitamin D level.
calcitriol is the hormonally active form of vitamin D3.
In biochemistry, calcitriol may be more commonly termed as some variation of "25-dihydroxycholecalciferol" such as "1-alpha,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol", "1-25-dihydroxycholecalciferol", etc. But that's part of the problem, none of the biochem names are dominant. In medicine, however, "calcitriol" appears to be dominant, at least at the NIH in the US:
Google searches of the National Institutes of Health website: "calcitriol" - "About 21,800 results" "dihydroxycholecalciferol" - "About 3,850 results"
Also, and perhaps more immediately important here, is that the text of this article including the lead sentence speaks of "calcitriol", not "25-dihydroxycholecalciferol" or its variant names. Facts707 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I was trained as a biochemist, not an MD, so I tend to use biochemistry textbooks. I see I may have moved info from Calcitriol to this title some time ago, because apparently there were two different articles and we merged them. I doubt we need an admin to move it back. My question would be, is it a good idea to use Calciol instead of Cholecalciferol? Somehow I suspect that Deluca's recommendation hasn't been widely adopted. (It's from 1981, that was a while ago. Does this information still apply?) Still "calciol" has some advantages (I like it), and we have the redirects, and alternative names in the leads, and we could use the G. P. Moss web page as justification for it. (Also, Calcifediol is not even mentioned by Moss [actually he lists it under other names with a footnote that it is a "WHO-approved nonproprietary name"]. Have other editors decided we should use INN names? IUPAC-IUB suggested trivial names might be a better choice. Deluca is [was] a leader in this field.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some Google Books search results:

The case for calcitriol is not overwhelming, and a case for moving calcifediol to hydroxycholecalciferol could be made. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I located a guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Articles to use INN, so I agree we should rename the article as you suggest. Since the edit histories are complicated, maybe an admin should handle this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Calcitriol and the inhibition on calcitonin[edit]

On the article, there is a citation needed tag next to the statement "Calcitriol also inhibits the release of calcitonin..." - could the following PubMed article be considered a sufficient source? -- (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)