Talk:Sulforaphane

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Chemicals Low‑importance

	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.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article needs clarification: Sulforaphane are not bad

My first impression from the Kale & Sulforaphane article was, that sulforaphane are bad. The respective german wikipedia article clarified that sulforaphane are or are assumed to be rather good than bad. Both english wikipedia articles need to clarify that, as well. Consequences if the english articles are not fixed: People could believe that sulforaphane are highly poisonous and consequently kale must be cooked and is harming if eaten uncooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.174.108 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interests

When citing articles by Talalay, Fahey and others at Johns Hopkins, Wikipedia should notify readers that they are equity owners in Brassica Protection Products LLC, licensee of Johns Hopkins patents and developer of broccoli sprout extract products. See, for example, Science Daily, October 23, 2007, at www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022171929.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.46.159 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 151.199.46.159 on this one. While it is not unusual for researchers to form companies based on their research, I find this article to be very biased toward promoting sulforaphane supplements. « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:27 2008 May 19 (UTC)

Whilst I am very happy to hear about cutting edge research in this area, the tone of the article makes assertions which appear brazen and untested in the strictest sense. These assertions should be scaled back - partly to preserve the credibility of the actual research!PeterS2009 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the paper that found a link between broccoli sprout consumption and H. pylori treatment used no control group and extremely small sample size (9 people). --Tweenk (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweenk, perhaps this is a trend. I don't work in medical research, and don't feel qualified to comment on the main page, but if you take a look at the PNAS 104 paper, the Abstract claims a long-lasting effect for sulforaphane, which later, so far as I can see, is only based on a part of the work that used only a single volunteer. Meanwhile table 1 makes interesting reading; three out of six volunteers showed no statistically significant benefit (one consistently so, two because the benefit they might have got showed a very random trend in relation to UV dosage). The table legend is hard to understand, as it defines the effect of UV as delta a*, delta being subtracting a value before exposure from that after (because UV exposure led to a constant increment in a* rather than a constant fractional increase); % change is then defined as one delta divided by the other. So what happens if the delta on the bottom is nearly zero? Or are we looking at the effect of sulforaphane on acetone-irritated skin? I don't want to put a spanner in the works of anything that could reduce skin-cancer, but I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether the work is actually good enough to cite here. From PNAS I'd expect it to be good. 149.155.96.5 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient-enhanced broccoli

I think it would be helpful if editors would add the following to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/03/superbroccoli-may-fight-cancer "The new broccoli, called Beneforte, contains two to three times more glucoraphanin than standard broccoli. It will be sold at Marks & Spencer stores from and make an appearance on the shelves of other supermarkets next year." 173.210.125.42 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed cite to study: 2/3 reduction of glucosinolates and sulforaphane in fresh broccoli after steaming.

This was the only study I easily found for the often-repeated claim that cooking reduces the goitrogenic properties of cruciferous vegetables.

Conaway CC, Getahun SM, Liebes LL, Pusateri DJ, Topham DK, Botero-Omary M, Chung FL. "Disposition of glucosinolates and sulforaphane in humans after ingestion of steamed and fresh broccoli." Nutr Cancer. 2000;38(2):168-78. PMID 11525594

Erratum in Nutr Cancer 2001;41(1-2):196. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 January 2012‎ (UTC) (refactored to rm copyvio)LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review sources

There have been some decent review sources in the past few years.

Joanna Tomczyk, Anna Olejnik "Sulforafan – potencjalny czynnik w prewencji i terapii chorób nowotworowych" [Sulforaphane – a possible agent in prevention and therapy of cancer] (in Polish) Postepy Hig Med Dosw' 2010 Nov 29;64:590-603. PMID 21160094

CONCLUSION
The results of previous studies indicate a complex mechanism of action of anticancer SFN, offering protection at different stages of carcinogenesis. But is particularly important opportunity to use this compound in the so-called. primary prevention of chemotherapy, due to the well-proven ability to induce detoxification enzymes and the prevention of chemically induced DNA damage. The positive results of in vitro and animal studies to confirm these properties SFN was achieved with relatively small doses of this compound, which are achievable in the human body. The data indicate that the use of SFN in healthy subjects and those at high risk could become a rational strategy for prophylaxis, although the genetic influence on the bioavailability requires further study.
— (rough translation)

Clarke JD, Dashwood RH, Ho E. "Multi-targeted prevention of cancer by sulforaphane" Cancer Lett. 2008 Oct 8;269(2):291-304. Epub 2008 May 27. PMID 18504070 PMC 2579766
Fimognari C, Hrelia P. "Sulforaphane as a promising molecule for fighting cancer" Mutat Res. 2007 May-Jun;635(2-3):90-104. Epub 2006 Nov 28. PMID 17134937

The numerous primary sources in the article should be trimmed back or eliminated. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microwaving Broccoli and Loss of Sulforaphane?

Where to find reliable data on microwaving broccoli vs. steaming broccoli and any loss of sulforaphane? GeoFan49 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory regime vs. review findings?

In this edit Zefr softened the findings of the meta-analysis PMID 24969510 in light of the fact that (US?) regulatory agencies hadn't regulated in-line with the reviews finding's. Should we do that? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, Alex, the cited meta-analysis is only a survey of studies that included sulforaphane, apparently showing only weak evidence for neuroprotection. It is not evident from the abstract that the meta-analysis applied only to human spinal cord injury. As with many phytochemicals under research for potential benefits in humans, the Institute of Medicine and FDA guidelines require "significant scientific agreement" (SSA) and "totality of evidence"[1] to assure a possible benefit has been adequately evaluated before approving the compound with a health claim such as "neuroprotection in spinal cord injury". Sulforaphane has not yet achieved such convincing status for this indication or anything else, so language in the Article needs to be soft while research continues. This SSA qualification applies to all phytochemicals not yet approved with health claims, so adheres to WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear how "guidance to industry" on the labelling of supplements pertains to Wikipedia's description of natural processes, but it isn't really a big deal in any case. Simply reword to make the situation clear: "Scientific reviewers found XYZ in PMID 24969510, but the FDA regulators have not yet ruled on allowing the finding to be shown on packaging." LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the solution, with thanks. As I interpret the FDA Guidance to Industry, it's not only about what manufacturers are allowed to say on labels, but moreso about the weight of science that underlies health claim eligibility and provides factual information to Wikipedia users. If a concept is under study and has not yet attained SSA, is it valid to discuss it in a Wikipedia article as fact, e.g., "sulforaphane has a neuroprotective effect that can aid recovery from spinal cord injury"? I would say not, but feel it would be appropriate to state that such a condition is under preliminary research, enabling Wikipedia users knowledge of the background being developed.--Zefr (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using that primary source for ~antioxidant (mostly) benefits

Those attributes listed are evidently well known in the field. Many similar reasons in the review cited above (re cancer). I'll try to use the reference above, another review, or find a textbook reference.

It was random select, double blind, placebo controlled and logical. Potential benefits to autistic kids with positive (to eating sprouts) side effects.

Are you're going to block any mention of the study results? I could just say "under ~intense investigation for treatment of ASD."

I think this article should include text noting that adding dry ground mustard seed (or other uncooked cruciferous) to a meal including cooked cruciferous vegetables (especially cauliflower) will then give you sulforaphane again. Way over my head, but a chemist friend says it isn't hard to reach to dosage in that study with good ole vegetables. No conflict of interest there. Please collaborate by giving me advise, or better yet do some writing.32cllou (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, and shouldn't sift/select/analyse/use primary sources ourselves. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look here: http://examine.com/supplements/Sulforaphane/#summary12-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23411305 ee1518 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examine.com is not a reliable source; the primary research might be wrong (which is why we do not use it). Wikipedia only carries settled knowledge. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching PubMed for "sulforaphane review" finds many recent results. PMID 24147970 PMID 24861849 PMID 24943896 PMID 25389432 PMID 25617536 PMID 25868717 and PMID 22540907 are all quite recent reviews. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Research" chapter

At its current state this chapter does not make any sense, because the cited studies are about more specific topics than "mechanisms in vivo" or "human diseaces". I will rewrite.

′′Although there is basic research on how sulforaphane may affect mechanisms in vivo,[1][2] there is no high-quality evidence to date for its efficacy against human diseases.[3]′′

[1]Tarozzi A, Angeloni C, Malaguti M, Morroni F, Hrelia S, Hrelia P (2013). "Sulforaphane as a potential protective phytochemical against neurodegenerative diseases". Oxid Med Cell Longev (Review). 2013: 415078. doi:10.1155/2013/415078. PMC 3745957. PMID 23983898.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[2]Moon JK, Kim JR, Ahn YJ, Shibamoto T (2010). "Analysis and anti-Helicobacter activity of sulforaphane and related compounds present in broccoli ( Brassica oleracea L.) sprouts". J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 (11): 6672–7. doi:10.1021/jf1003573. PMID 20459098.

[3]van Die, MD; Bone, KM; Emery, J; Williams, SG; Pirotta, MV; Paller, CJ (April 2016). "Phytotherapeutic interventions in the management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of randomised trials". BJU Int. 117 (S4): 17–34. doi:10.1111/bju.13361. PMID 26898239.

Qtea (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use lab research as encyclopedic information. Please read WP:MEDRS and review this video. --Zefr (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes I completely understand that. I got a bit drifted away while trying to improve the existing text, I am sorry.Qtea (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378 - Biochemistry Lab - spring 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2023 and 20 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Znchtt (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bubbstar (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]