From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editing for readability[edit]

This article is hard to read and contains factual inaccuracies. Glycosides are defined as compounds with glycosidic bonds - the "moiety"...which is a terrible, terrible term to spring on a reader in a definition for the public, by the way...can, in fact, be another carbohydrate. I'm fixing stuff now. (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

cyanogenic or cyanogenetic[edit]

hmm, I just added cyanogenic glycosides, but then I found cyanogenic glycosides. I think these are the same thing, but I don't know which heading should it have (IANA-Chemist). Maybe someone can clear this up, or leave as is if nothing new is needed. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think cyanogenic is the correct term; cyanogenetic is a misnomer for the same thing. However, these compounds do not necessarily have hydrogen cyanide as the aglycone. I fixed it. AxelBoldt 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyanogenic glycosides[edit]

Typo that needs to be cleared up in the last paragraph on the page:

Cyanogenic glycosides "In this case, the aglycone is a contains a cyanide group" 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


In the paragraph : "In this case, the aglycone is a contains a cyanide group"

The word "cyanide" should be replaced by "nitrile", because these compounds do not contain the cyanide ion (CN-) but the nitrile group (R-CN) instead. These are completely different things, as nitrile compounds being nowhere near as toxic as most cyanide-containing ionic compounds. Dr.Rezaf 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Where do the betalains fit into this classification? --EncycloPetey 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nucleotide sugars?[edit]

Are these glycosides? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Steroidal glycosides or cardiac glycosides, I need a sitation for the information given, and alseo a link or two for info on medicinal uses for steroidal glycosides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Glyco=Sugar, and Side=?[edit]

I think it should be mentioned. Ben-Natan (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cyanogenic glycosides[edit]

Regarding a recent edit, the notion that cyanogenic glycosides (or any other toxin) can potentially be delivered selectively to cancer cells has not been disproven. The material found at Amygdalin concerns the systemic delivery of amygdalin as cytotoxic chemotherapy, the utility of which has been disproven. The utility of the selective delivery of toxic substances to cancer cells is still being tested, and in the future, a cyanogenic glycoside could be one of the toxins evaluated. At this point, it is unwise to generalize from the Laetrile fiasco to future treatment modalities which have not yet been developed.

In the same edit, my use of could in place of may was not intended to change the emphasis or meaning of the sentence regarding CO2 affecting cyanogens in food plants, but was done on stylistic grounds, as the sentence already contained the word may, so I dispute the reversion of that substitution. The sentence was improved, and the meaning did not change. E.g.: "It could rain tomorrow" vs "It may rain tomorrow"; both are indicating a possibility. Wikipedia is not a collection of verbatim quotes from reliable sources, nor is it some sort of catechism. It is a collection of content, in the words of its editors. --Quisqualis (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

the section is generally unsourced. i will fix it. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue I brought up was not sources. Please explain how finding sources will address my points, or kindly revert your edit.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Without sources you are just adding OR to Wikipedia. Your edit replaced unsourced OR. It is all garbage and needs to be rewritten based on sourced. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
and done, in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, about my second issue:"A recent study may also show that increasing CO2 levels may could result in much higher levels of cyanogenic..." Isn't that too many mays for no gain of clarity?
yeah i should have removed that the first time around. we need a review discussing that to see if it stuck in the field or has been ignored. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by field, or what exactly you mean there generally. Do elaborate.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The content about higher CO2 levels increasing cy gly levels was based on a research paper (a primary source) - the surface refs are news reports about that paper. In the field of biology, research papers are commonly not replicable or are ignored by other scientists in the field. This is one of the main reasons why we are especially careful to use secondary sources (like literature reviews) for content about biology. The secondary sources are where we see how the field treated the research and conclusions published in the primary source; that's the "epistemology" of Wikipedia, as it were. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that it's better not to mention the CO2 study at all at this point (and wait for further research)? I'm willing to remove that content.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am suggesting that the content be removed. Not so much until there is further research, but rather until the matter is discussed in at least one review article where the work is validated and put in context. Se we are agreed here. Thanks for talking through these things. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)