Talk:Levomefolic acid/Archive 1

Incorrectly Defined

Levomefolic acid is incorrectly defined in this article. It is important to exercise caution when listing alternate name to avoid insinuating chemicals are the same. In this case, the alternate names do not all refer to the same chemical substance. Looking at the talk page for this article, it appears there are similar struggles later on, most notably regarding folic acid. Folic acid is another example of a different chemical substance and should not be defined as being Vitamin B9 or folate. Folic acid is a created substance added to many foods. For those further editing this page, I would suggest examining this page: http://mthfr.net/l-methylfolate-methylfolate-5-mthf/2012/04/05/ and other pages on the site. True experts on the various MTHFR polymorphisms (sometimes called mutations although technically incorrect) appear in my personal research to tend to have more accurate information about methylation and substances such as levomefolic acid. Uberveritas (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current page contains factual misinformation: The un-methylated form of L-5MTHF is THF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrofolic_acid). Folic Acid is a synthetic compound and is activated by a different enzyme: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrofolate_reductase)

references are ubiquitous including all biochemistry texts. Here's one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/folic-acid

Best regards, Kenneth Storch, MD, PhD --Metabolic (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Metabolic[reply]

Stereochem missing

As a tetrahydrofolate I believe the structure needs the stereochemistry added.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should now be consistency between the image, IUPAC name, CAS number, SMILES and PubChem link. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

potentially useful cancer links for 5 MTHF

Role of MTHFR polymorphisms and folate levels in different phenotypes of sporadic colorectal cancers
5MTHF plasma kinetics in Table 3, Fig 2
The Story of Isofol Medical--Stageivsupporter (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC), updated 9 June[reply]

KEGG number

The compound exists in two KEGG databases: in KEGG compound as C00440 and in KEGG drug as D09353. How can we include both in the chembox? --kupirijo (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocentric

This article is mostly focussed on human and medical aspects, whereas 5-methyl-THF is a ubiquitous metabolite present in all living organisms. --Fdardel (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. After relisting and the expiration of both an RM and an RFC's usual life cycle, there's no consensus for a move here. It looks like there's interest in some splitting or merging, so that can be discussed in a new section. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Levomefolic acid → L-methylfolate – I think an exception to naming guidelines to prefer the INN name (Levomefolic acid) needs to be granted because all modern research that I've seen, including the naming of the drugs made from Metafolin, are using the name l-methylfolate. Google Scholar ghits since 2008 for "l-methylfolate" are 227, ghits for "Levomefolic acid" are just 4. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC) - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. "L-methylfolate" is commonly used but technically wrong as it refers to the anion (or an unspecified salt, which can be assumed to be the calcium salt). We normally use the active moiety for an article name, even if a salt is actually used. Also, I think we should stick with INNs unless a substance isn't mainly/exclusively notable as a pharmaceutical drug, as with tetrahydrocannabinol or dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate – this might be the case here as the substance occurs naturally in human physiology.

In any case, the article shouldn't be split into one about the acid and one about the calcium salt (as suggested on my talk page) unless one of them is (eg. chemically) notable by itself. Note that we have diclofenac, but no articles on the sodium/potassium/diethylammonium salts. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stillwaterising (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Anypodetos said. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly also what he said, especially about anions/acids. Also, when a naming clash exists, say popular vs formally correct, or sometimes even when a misspelling or misnomer is common, a redir (or several, according to need) is a quick, cheap and painless way of dealing with the dilemma(s). Don't move, say I, but do make sure that every reasonable search gets directed to the same (appropriate) article. We get this sort of problem all the time in dealing with biological taxons and I have not yet seen an example where anyone has regretted using the formally named article with appropriate redirs for common, erroneous, or obsolete names. Users commonly don't even notice the redir. JonRichfield (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The scope of this article seems to overlap that of the folic acid article, and neither seems to me to be the place for the common material. Each of these article titles relates to a particular compound, however the material on biological significance seems to relate to a group of related compounds all commonly called folate or vitamin B9, both of which currently redirect to the folic acid article.

Do we perhaps need a third article, and would that then help to better define the scope and decide the title of this one? Andrewa (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a dumb question, I'd say... Proper comfortable context is crucial in any worthwhile encyclopedia. JonRichfield (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already done with some other vitamins, see eg. vitamin D. If there is enough material to go beyond stub status, I'd support a move to vitamin B9 (for consistency and also because, as I've said above, "folate" is technically incorrect); otherwise, we could simply include general information in the article on folic acid, which is (I suppose) the best-known form. In this case, it should still be made clear which information pertains to folic acid and which to B9 in general (see also Talk:Folic acid#Name / Separating Folate from Folic Acid). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of redirecting folate and vitamin B9 to B vitamins#Vitamin B9 but there's no such section, just B vitamins#List of B vitamins which links to folic acid as Vitamin B9, unlike the line on Vitamin B6 which links to several compounds.

It seems to me that there's already more than stub status material. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the article at vitamer is accurate, then it's misleading to have vitamin B9 simply redirecting to folic acid, as there is at least one other vitamer of Vitamin B9... Levomefolic acid. This is a particularly important one to get right owing to the controversy over which forms are effective and why. Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know virtually nothing of this subject, but RFC bot asked me to contribute, so here I am. I suggest we use the most common name as the article title and redirect all other names to the article with the most common name. If the most common name is not the "technically correct" name, this should be made clear in the article lede. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though that sounds very reasonable, there is a lot to be said for consistently making the title of the main article as technically correct as possible and making the informal ones the redirs. For one thing, it does no harm because the reader still winds up in the right place without any extra time wasting or clicks. For another, popular names are unstable and in fact they often cause offence for a variety of reasons,not the least being that they turn out to be trade names, regional names etc. Eg, "vacuum cleaner" might sound stuffier than "Hoover", but it would be unwise to name the article "Hoover". Technical names don't push anyone's POV. JonRichfield (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus leaned in that direction, I could certainly support that position as well. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Does this feel like a sales pitch to anyone else?

I'm reading through this (with a background in supplements and knowledge of the patent fights that have happened over the past decade between supplement companies and Merck), and it just keeps feeling like a marketing pitch from Merck trying to say how good their product is and how bad the alternatives are. For example, the second sentance says, "folic acid (vitamin B9), is a synthetic form of folate found in nutritional supplements" but the form of Folate found in food in nature IS Folic Acid (and the body has to convert it into Folate)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid#Sources even points out almost a dozen common foods Folic Acid is found in, verifying it's not just synthetic. The article also refers to it as "the natural, active form of folic acid" and almost glossing over the fact that it's only that form at the cellular level after your body has converted it from Folic Acid to Folate. Then moving on to the "Commercial Use" section, it doesn't point out that those are all of the benefits and uses of Folic Acid in general, but make it sound like this specific (and patented) formula is the only thing that will help with these. The more I read it, the more it sounds like it was taken right from Merck's website or their marketing department... I thought sales pitches like these weren't allowed by Wikipedia. :-s Burleigh2 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC) One thing to add, I came across this page when I typed in "MethylFolate" and it redirected me to this page as a specific name brand of Folate. That in and of itself is like if I put in the word "Lard" and was redirected to "Crisco"... really not completely appropriate for unbiased information, but sounds more and more like the information just came from Merck. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching and fixing these issues; I agree with your analysis of the former text. I further tweaked the wording of the first sentence in the lead.

The redirect of Methylfolate to this page is there because methylfolate is just another chemical form of levomefolic acid. (Just as benzoate redirects to benzoic acid.) Levomefolic acid isn't a brand name but the International Nonproprietary Name of this chemical substance, so your comparison isn't quite correct. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got to agree with you there... it starts out with the generic chemical compound, but then it goes into listing various name brands (headed by the Merck listing) and has already been flagged as potential spam by Wiki. I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw it like this, too. ;-) Thanks! Burleigh2 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help listing brand names; think about the confusion we would cause if we didn't mention the name Prozac on the fluoxetine page... The only way not to sound like and advert is to report advantages and disadvantages of a drug as neutrally as possible. Glad you are helping there! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6S-5-MTHF? Legal issues?

Legal section? How is that relevant to consumers? Is some kind of patented form of 6-5-MTHF better than non-patented one?
6S-5-MTHF? Is it really 100% same as 5-MTHF as Wikipedia now claims? So if a consumer buys 5-HTMF, it has same effects as 6S-5-MTHF?

Here is some info: http://www.drpressman.com/article-folate-type-affects-bioavailability-says-study.html

I am not an expert, so if you are expert in Folate, please fix the Wikipedia article and tell us normal consumers, what is relevant and what is not?

ee1518 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that "Methyl folate can be bought at online stores or in some chemists though without a prescription." Sellingstuff (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral folate deficiency

In Cerebral folate deficiency, levomefolic acid is low in the cerebrospinal fluid while there are normal levels of it in the serum. Would it be okay to include a mention of this in this article? The diagnosis of CFD relies on the analysis of 5-MTHF levels in the CSF. --CopperKettle 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]