Talk:Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
December 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
December 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

new content[edit]

The following was added here, and edit warred back in here:

Human aging is characterized by a gradual deterioration of physiological and biochemical function.[1] Limited research data suggests that NAD+ levels decreases with increasing age.[2] Preliminary results suggests that supplementing key NAD+ intermediates, such as nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) and nicotinamide riboside (NR), might rise NAD+ levels in both mice and humans.[3]


  1. ^ López-Otín C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G (June 2013). "The hallmarks of aging". Cell. 153 (6): 1194–217. PMC 3836174Freely accessible. PMID 23746838. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039. 
  2. ^ Verdin, Eric (December 2015). "NAD+ in aging, metabolism, and neurodegeneration". Science. 11 (6265): 1208–13. PMID 26785480. doi:10.1126/science.aac4854. 
  3. ^ Imai S, Guarente L (August 2014). "NAD+ and sirtuins in aging and disease". Trends in cell biology. 24 (8): 464–71. PMC 4112140Freely accessible. PMID 24786309. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2014.04.002. 

Moved here for discussion. More comments anon. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This kind of content about "preliminary evidence" is very typical marketing for dietary supplements like Nicotinamide riboside and is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Since I cite reviews from the journals "Cell" and "Science" I have reason to believe that our small difference of opinion will not be resolved by a discussion between the two of us. In the meantime my original edit will stand. Tomorrow I will contact the responsible people at Wikiproject Molecular and Cell Biology. You will hear from me. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It is the content you generated from the refs that is unacceptable. The Science ref makes it clear that the results are extremely preliminary and that there are significant risks of failure and of harm from the approach advocated in this edit, which the edit somehow neglects to mention. This fails NPOV by miles. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Alright, here is my take on this.
The first reference doesn't even have a mention of this.
The second ref, I can't check it, due to it being on print.
The third ref is really hard to read at best.
JJBers 02:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
it is a good point that going from the 1st sentence to the 2nd and third is WP:SYN. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ Jytdog (its WP:SYN)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Clowns und Kinder: I understand where you're coming from by including this. However, the total volume of preliminary data relating to NAD is massive, and I feel that there's plenty of better-established info to include. This article should probably stick to the established consensus information. Prelim results should probably be added once they're a bit more established in the field. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Yes, I will await further results from ongoing research. Thank you for your opinion. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)