![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The image shows a range of compounds with different length isoprenyl tails - as the article is specifically about Coenzyme Q10 the image should be of that structure alone. -- The chemistds ( talk) 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What are typical dosages used when Coenzyme Q10 is taken as a dietary supplement?
Coenzyme Q10 has been described as an anti-hypertensive in several good-seeming studies (see a review) but this aspect of its use as a supplement is not listed in the article. As I don't feel authoritative on the topic I simply point this possible omission out for potential rectification by an expert. -- cmh 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This does seem well-established (the NIH web page on CoQ10, classifies this as being the application of CoQ10 for which there is the best supporting evidence. The code B they give this application is defined as "Good scientific evidence for this use". Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have some doubts about the analysis on the before mentioned page since it is not possible to understand on what basis the classification is given. I have looked up some of the references and they weren't convincing at all. To the contrary both the AAFP as an revieuw done in the annals of pharmocotherapy doubt the use of Q10 as a treatment option.
Links: AAFP [4] Ann Pharmocoth [5]
As a "Vitamin", the Co Q should have Dietary Sources (natural, herbs, ...), along with the dried powder.-- Connection 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the German Wik says on sources: CoQ10 is abundant in organ meat (liver), oily fish (sardines, mackerel, nuts (e.g., pistacios), legumes, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, plantoils, cabbages,onions, potatoes, spnch, brussel sprouts, and broccoli. Cooking/boiling can destroy it. 211.225.37.47 ( talk) 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that the concentrations found in foods should be mcg/g and not mg/g. This would correlate with other sources of information but I cannot access the full article cited. Not sure if I should change it or not. Anyone? DrSparticle ( talk) 23:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This page looks great. Please make footnotes to the articles for each thing I've put a 'citation needed' flag next to, just to steamline the references. Thanks
Why does the body's production of CoQ decrease with age? What produces CoQ? Is it produced by a gland? What can be done to prevent the decrease of production in the first place? Beyond the classroom 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this citation will due for the "decrease with age" question:
Kalen A, Appelkvist EL, Dallner G. Age-related changes in the lipid compositions of rat and human tissues. Lipids. 1989;24(7):579-584. ( PMID 2779364)
This reference was used by the Linus Pauling Institute at OSU for a similar age related statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpauley ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement for supplement companies that sell this chemical compound. Much of the article is written in an an unencyclopedic informal tone. Some of the external links appear to be spam. Even some of the "references" are spam-like links to a ad-heavy Wiki site - hardly a reliable source. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up if someone more knowledgeable doesn't help out soon. Deli nk
I notice that cleanup also may be needed for the table that states quantities of Coenzyme Q10 in foods. Not only is the selection of foods listed very limited, but the source cited ([ http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/coq10.htm www.thefactsaboutfitness.com) also is questionable. This appears to be an unprofessional, apparently non-authoritative webpage that cites a further source for its information. I am not qualified to evaluate the ultimate source, however, I hope that someone who is will determine whether a better source can be cited, or the section may need to be removed. 129.176.151.10 ( talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Italic text== Title == I suggest to change the title to "Coenzyme Q10". In the research world (biochemical, clinical, etc.) and in real live the term "Coenzyme Q" is virtually not used. On Google "Coenzyme Q10" has about 1,1 million hits. "Coenzyme Q" has about 0,55 million hits, of which most, if you check, refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (or "Coenzyme Q-10") anyhow. Moreover, the biggest part of the references and of the external links of this article refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (and not to "Coenzyme Q"). So I suggest renaming the title and adding one paragraph about other (side-)chain length Qs. Furthermore, the international academic research is coordinated by "The International Coenzyme Q10 Association". So I also think that the drawing of CoQ3 should be changed in a drawing with CoQn (and saying that n=10 for CoQ10) Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
ah shut up —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.145.138.203 (
talk)
03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless somebody has other info I will delete the reference to Singh soon, because it was found that this researcher was engaged in fraud. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be put in one paragraph, which I plan to do in the near future. Current article does not describe well enough the main function of CoQ10 in the body: Energy. (95% of all ATP is made through intermediation of this molecule). 2nd is antioxidant: eg. against endogeneous made radicals (in the mitochondria) as well;it's unique antioxidant function in the recuperation of the active form of Vitamin E, its preventive function on LDL; etc. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless somebody has a good reason than I will delete the name of Dr. Wolf soon and have it replaced by Professor Karl Folkers and coworkers at Merck, Inc. The merit goes to Prof Folkers. Peter Lambrechts 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be advised that Peter Lambrechts is Business Developer for Kaneka Pharma, a manufacturer of Q10 dietary supplements. He may therefore not qualify as unbiased. Please review his edits and the references. 83.83.20.55 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Dutch so please excuse my English... However, I found a sentence in the article that I just cannot agree with. It says something like: "Coenzyme Q10 is used widely to treat breast cancer, heart disease and gum disease". It was asked for a reference, but I think this is just BS. Coenzyme Q10 is just NOT widely used to treat any of these diseases, and certainly is not used widely to treat breast cancer or heart disease. The author who originally placed this sentence put a link there to support his claim, but this link now gives you a wikipedia-like page that has all kinds of claims that are not valid or proven, stating for example what a shame it is that people with heart disease sometimes get open heart surgery while they could also take some Q10 (and live happily ever after).
Perhaps, perhaps using coenzyme Q10 could help some people (in particular people who might be low in their natural Q10) in preventing disease. (I am not sure this has been proven without a doubt for ANY illness in normal people; I know of some very very rare metabolic disorders where people do not produce coenzyme Q10 for themselves and then you do get ill and treatment with Q10 helps.) . But this product surely can't cure you when you do have breast cancer or heart disease. You really need to see a real doctor!
So I found this sentence dangerous and untrue and removed it. Huijts 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. I found out later that on the removed link page it states that Q10 is widely used in Japan to treat heart disease and so on... Well, I wouldn't be able to check that... Anyone here living in Japan or being able to read Japanese?? Huijts 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed a series of suspect statements and testimonials posted into this discussion section from the overtly biased editor 'Gentlewar', who needs to read the 'Talk page guidelines' before reposting. 'Gentlewar', please be aware that Wikipedia discussion pages are not a venue for promoting a product but are, rather, a place to discuss the content of the article being discussed. The goal is to improve the unbiased and objective content of the article under discussion. Overtly biased and unsourced content, particularly enthusiastic and unsourced testimonials, make all of your posted content suspect. For instance, within your first sentence, the unsourced "Verified by the FDA" statement immediately appeared suspect. A brief visit to the FDA website found no 'verification' of the properties of this coenzyme, but only an FDA judgement of a statement submitted as required by regulation by a manufacturer. The manufacturer indicated that they were making certain statments about their sold nutrient(s). Their statements included the following: "Research on CoQ- 10 has identified its role as a powerful antioxidant and has indicated that CoQ-10 supplementation may provide benefit in certain health conditions. In particular, CoQ-10 has been used to help maintain a healthy heart." (emphasis added) The FDA response to the statements included: "We certify the information in this notice is complete and accurate, and we have substantiation that the above statement(s) is truthful and not misleading." This is a far cry from "FDA verified". Finding your FDA statment to be overstated and unreferenced, and that your testimonials did not adhere to Wikipedia content standards, your posting has been deleted. Should you wish to repost, I would encourage you to first read the "Talk page guidelines" to determine how you might improve your discussion post towards the Wiki goals for content. Thanks.
Lcph88 (
talk)
22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reference 23 shows a nice charts that explains Coq10 synthesis and how statins interfere with its production, but isn't there somewhat more authoritative available? Fogr4 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the CoQ10 page is included as a member of the Electron transport/oxidative phosphorylation system, shouldn't there be at least a brief section regarding conversion of ubiquinone to ubiquinol and its essential role in shuttling e- from Complexes I and II to complex III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.105.62 ( talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the table near the end of the article, the head of each column contains a strange symbol, a bow tie in a box, with no explanation. What does this symbol represent? Does it belong there at all? Is it graffiti? Jedwards01 ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
According to ( doi:10.1016/0925-4439(95)00028-3 ) Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1271 (1995) 195-204, Biochemical, physiological and medical aspects of ubiquinone function, Lars Ernster 3.,, Gustav Dallner a.b:
Ubiquinone, under the name coenzyme Q, was put on the metabolic map by Crane et al. [1] in 1957. It was proposed to be a component of the mitochondrial respira- tory chain, mediating electron transport between NADH and succinate dehydrogenases and the cytochrome system. Its structure was determined by Folkers and his colleagues [2] in 1958, and was found to be identical to that of a quinone earlier described by Morton and associates [3] and called by them ubiquinone, with reference to its ubiquitous occurrence in various tissues (Fig. 1). Ubiquinone became the ~official' name of the compound, established in 1975 by the IUPAC-1UB Commission on Biochemical Nomen- clature [4].
-- Rajah ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not find a section on Ubiquinol here. My husband and I both noticed an immediate increase in energy the first day we took a coQ10 supplement. (He takes 200 mg/day, I take 100 mg/day.) We are both in our 60's. Nothing seems to disturb his sleep, but that is one of his natural physical gifts - to be a sound sleeper.
I would like more information about ubiquinol. I have seen claims that it is absorbed up to 8X better than Co Q-10, and, therefore, that a smaller dosage is necessary. -- Allison14 ( talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Allsion14
I think there should be a section on how Q10 is used in the cosmetic industry. 142.166.189.202 ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The bottle I have of Q10 has the following warning - "Do not take while on warfarin therapy without medical advice"
gioto ( talk) 01:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok Google is your friend!
An article about the possible role for Q10 in cancer treatment has been compiled by the National Cancer Institute [9]. This reliable secondary source should be integrated in the article. MaxPont ( talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
why is there no mention whatsoever about it being very popular in cosmetic products? (i guess it used to be more popular, but it's still around) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.145.7 ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In two words: commercial advertising. No earth-shaking studies have come out in support of this product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 00:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Could mention "In one phase 2 clinical trial, CoQ10 significantly slowed the progression of Parkinson’s disease (Beal MF 2003)." Found "COENZYME Q10 SLOWS PROGRESSION OF EARLY PARKINSON’S DISEASE " (ref: Shults et al. "Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline." Archives of Neurology, October 2002, Vol. 59, No. 10, pp. 1541-1550.) Also covered in [10] - Started entry on main page. Rod57 ( talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The article does not mention side-effects of taking Co Q10 such as insomnia. See for example "Web MD" and "Mayo Clinic" Jerryfern ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
From the web:
This is not an uncommon side effect - just not well studied as CoQ10 is not a patentable drug. Not everyone seems effected, but those of us that are, this brain-fog is sever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This article goes straight from biochemistry to supplementation (without using the word) with no mention of sufficiency/deficiency in human health or performance or whether supplementation has any proven benefit at all in individuals who are not in some way already deficient.
I would almost prefer to see Q10 supplementation broken out as a separate page to keep the science and speculation better partitioned. (I tend to lump observational studies under speculation as per Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. On a good day, these studies amount to worthwhile speculation.)
Frequency and intensity? Frequency statistics suffer from weak tails. How strong would the adverse effects need to be for these studies to have detected them (and at what predetermined level of significance?)
If there's not yet any research establishing human norms of sufficiency, could this article manage to point this out before jumping straight into supplementation? — MaxEnt 22:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Not one mention of WP:MEDRS on this talk page yet?! I'm going to mark the "Supplementation benefits" section with WP:NPOV, as I don't see something more specific for MEDRS problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ubiquinone redirects here, which deals with Q10 and has consequently a strong human focus. There should be a page with all the various terpenylated quinones (plastoquinone, menaquinone, ubiquinone etc), but I can't seem to find it. This page sould have a for hatnote to that page if it exists as major quinone analysis is very important in bacteriology and has nothing to do with humans. Anyone seen this page? -- Squidonius ( talk) 01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My ophthalmologist prescribed 100mg of CoQ10 to improve my eye health after suffering from a Iritis attack and having previously had a retinal detachment. She got this information ta a conference she recently attended. I'm hoping someone passionate about this subject finds some good objective info on eye health and CoQ10 and updates the wiki article. Thanks. Grandeandy ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The case has been clearly made in a review study from 1995 (British Dental Journal) that there is absolutely no beneficial effect on Periodontal Disease. Most studies proving otherwise are out dated, in-vitro or have serious errors in their set-up or statistics. Bruno Loos makes a good case about this in the Dutch Dental Journal (Nederlands Tandartsenblad). Based on this, Pharma Nord was sued and sentenced in the Netherlands for keeping on the false claims on Q10 and Periodontal Disease. Case was filed by the Dutch Academy of Periodontics (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Parodontologie) and the Dutch Consumers Alliance (Consumentenbond).
It's pretty much a clear case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
... And to my friend User:HMman: I did NOT remove ANY original research. Read the article, all the previous references are still there, but placed in the right context. The right context should be that Review studies supersede case-studies, in-vitro research and even clinical trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) -- DeTandarts ( talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
On a personal note; if I may; The frustrating thing about community editing efforts, like Wikipedia, is that you start writing about something that interests you (fun!)and you end up having to explain basic medical science to people (usually I get payed for lectures!). So please make changes if the translation is not correct or exact but don't make me explain medical basics any more! -- DeTandarts ( talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been more than a year since I noted the citations, when given, for most of the claims of beneficial health are very much suspect--- yet the article is still inappropriately biased with claims that are not supported by the evidence. Citing a source that itself states "many people take CoQ10 supplements for [fill in the health benefit]" is *NOT* a valid citation that supports the claimed benefit. I suggest a very aggressive re-write, adding qualifiers to the many low-confidence citations so that the article reflects what the actual citations state, and not what the writers wish the citations had stated. This will upset "true believers" in the supplement, but the science at this point (November 2012) still does not support most of the beneficial claims being made. -- Desertphile ( talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ubiquinone redirects here which talks only about Q10, the eukaryotic and alphaproteobacterial version, yet I cannot seem to find any article of the other variants. E. coli uses Q8, Psuedomonas Q9 and Legionella Q12, despite all three's membership in the same class, and Bergey's manual has tables upon tables of quinone analysis. The article menaquinone, its anaerobic counterpart, redirects to vitamin K, which talks only about its bizarre usage in Eukaryotes. My first guess it that this is not a gap in wikipedia but a bad navigation problem. However, I cannot seem to find anything. Anyone any the wiser? -- Squidonius ( talk) 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I remember reading in the Wikipedia page for COQ10 several years ago a couple of things which are now missing. They are very basic things and should not be up for disupte. One was how the substance was named, that it was given the name Ubidecarinone because it was found everywhere, hence the Ubi from "ubiquitous". This is now missing completely. Is this because it shows how benign this substance is and how basic to life it is? The other thing I remember reading was that COQ10 was a component in cell membranes and the Myelin Sheath. Any reference to this has also been deleted. Finally, it used to say that it was needed in those organs which had the highest need for energy and listed the heart, liver and BRAIN, now it has omitted the brain and says kidneys. Why has the brain been replaced by the kidneys? Any reference to COQ10 being beneficial to ANYTHING has pretty-much been removed and all references now cite that more or less nothing has ever been shown as to it's usefulness. Overall the page now gives a view that this substance is only relevant in small selective areas, and that it has virtually no benefit other than energy production in cells. I do not work for any company and am in no way associated with the COQ10 industry, other than a consumer of it. I have used it for a decade to prevent heart palpitations caused by a second nerve in my heart, I take 250mg a day and my heart behaves, I stop taking it and my irregular heartbeat returns after a few weeks and I have an episode. I have stopped and started using it many times over the years and it has been proven in my case to have benefit to my heart operating correctly, IN MY CASE. I understand that that anecdotal evidence such as this is not admissible on a Wikipedia page and am not requesting such to be added, however I find it concerning in the extreme that very basic information on COQ10 which might give the impression it is a benign substance (which it is) and which was there for a long time initially has now been removed and also that all references to ANY benefits noted in any trials anywhere have also been removed, giving the impression that it is of no use to anyone. This is absolutely untrue.
I would definitely like to see the information on how COQ10 is part of the make-up of cell membranes and Myelin returned to this page, plus the information removed about why it was given its name coming from the word "ubiquitous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurusthecat ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
TaurusTheCat have had this amazing situation of Coenzyme Q and your heart palpitations looked at by the community of cardiologists and maybe even neurologists? CoQ is all about electron flow; and however the redox poise is set up in your particular heart, it's got to be indicative of JUST how this mysterious system is regulated --- electronically. OTOH -- you don't need the hassle. Richard8081 ( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Pterins were first discovered in the pigments of butterfly wings (hence the origin of their name, from the Greek pteron (πτερόν), [1] wing
source: {{ Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing
A more recent Cochrane review is available on CoQ10 for heart failure.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)Much of what is included now does not belong there.
Speculation such as, "Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases" is not appropriate.
"the use of Coenzyme Q10 was associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA) of clinical status..." is gross cherry picking edit as the full sentence concludes "Although coenzyme Q10 is associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status and exercise capacity, the evidence is based on small trial numbers and is thus incomplete." and is not congruent with the current analysis, "There were insufficient data to compare results for total mortality, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation, NYHA clinical status...". Not to mention, "We included the data from seven studies with a total of 914 patients (Adarsh 2008; Berman 2004; Keogh 2003; Khatta 2000; Kocharian 2009; Morisco 1993; Munkholm 1999), which were at risk of bias." and "For the remaining outcomes (New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status, symptoms improvement as measured using the six-minute walk test), we could not combine any two studies together and all results came from individual studies."
The conclusion of the earlier analysis, "No change in practice is warranted at this time as more high quality and larger studies need to be conducted" is substantially different in the new review, "This review provides no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for patients with heart failure." and importantly, "Until further evidence emerges to support the use of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure, there might be a need to re-evaluate whether further trials testing coenzyme Q10 in heart failure are desirable."
An update of this section is in order. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of information from a single study that was all based on the primary study itself. WP:MEDRS directs editors to use secondary sources. WP:NPOV provides guidance on WP:DUE weight. I have created this section for discussion of adding information from this study to the article. At this point it seems primary and undue. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coenzyme Q10/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
hypothetical-
27 y.o. history of CVA currently on Heprin, Coumadin, Plavix please explain drug interactions, side effects, molecular, & biological benefits of taking 150 mg qd. im ready for the correct and truthful answer. these miss nomers need to be added. yu could potentially kill someone without all the correct information. Print it all. Dr. erinhed? |
Last edited at 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Minus the overlinking, the unwarranted emphasis, the linkspam, and the questionable deletion; is there anything in these edits that is actually worth restoring? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I just put a few spaces in the middle of the SMILES representation string so that the infobox didn't take up 90% of the screen horizontally.. How should this be done "correctly"? I don't know how SMILES representation works, so the breaks may not be in places that "make sense". Jimw338 ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
HMG-CoA reductase is in the midddle of the mevalonate pathway but it's not clear how that relates to the 3 steps listed. Need more detail please. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Now says "Genes involved include PDSS1, PDSS2, COQ2, and ADCK3(COQ8,CABC1).[37]" but ADCK3 seems to be involved in the respiration pathway not the biosynthesis of Co Q10. (ref doesn't show online content to support use) PDSS1/2 seem to build the side chain, and COQ2 joins the 2 parts. Can we say that ? - Rod57 ( talk) 11:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In the line: "There are three redox states of CoQ10: fully oxidized (ubiquinone), semiquinone (ubisemiquinone), and fully reduced (ubiquinol)."
Is "semi-quinone" actually supposed to be "semi-oxidized"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF95:D469:8009:30BB:A07A:9C93 ( talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The health section in this article more or less says that no study has ever found that it really does anything. Should this be cleaned out? JSR ( talk) 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Chicken heart - who eats chicken heart? People who come to this article are often looking for dietary advice on sources of CoQ10. Chicken (muscle) is a very popular food source, and an alternative to red meat, but is not listed. On the Livestrong site it indicates that chicken contains about half that of beef and Linus Pauling Institute agrees with this ( http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/coenzyme-Q10). This would be useful to know. Andrew ranfurly ( talk) 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Chicken muscle should be listed, however, people DO eat chicken heart. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.124.116.101 (
talk)
17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Chicken heart is certainly a food, and available as such from butchers here in USA. It's instructional to list in any event, because CoQ10 concentration tend to be higher in organ meats, and also because the heart naturally has higher concentration on account of the constant energy demands. Drsruli ( talk) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coenzyme Q10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
These two sections present no useful information, are WP:PRIMARY and certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, and are unencyclopedic. Removed here for discussion, if warranted. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The article treats ubiquinone and CoQ10 as being synonymous, when they are not. The article itself says that the 10 refers to the number of isoprenyl subunits while also showing that as few as 6 may be present. I.e. CoQ10 is a specific kind of ubiquinone and ubiquinone (Coenzyme Q) can range from CoQ6 to CoQ10. I’m not an expert in organic chemistry (I’m an Environmental Science major), but I believe this warrants a reorganization of the article or making a separate article for CoQ and CoQ10. CoQ10 should not be placed hierarchically above ubiquinone. Jwfelder ( talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we conclude that CoQ10 is an effective and safe supplement for reducing fatigue symptoms." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449413/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20results%20of,supplement%20for%20reducing%20fatigue%20symptoms. also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30935528/ but https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22682875/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.63.86 ( talk) 17:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The image shows a range of compounds with different length isoprenyl tails - as the article is specifically about Coenzyme Q10 the image should be of that structure alone. -- The chemistds ( talk) 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What are typical dosages used when Coenzyme Q10 is taken as a dietary supplement?
Coenzyme Q10 has been described as an anti-hypertensive in several good-seeming studies (see a review) but this aspect of its use as a supplement is not listed in the article. As I don't feel authoritative on the topic I simply point this possible omission out for potential rectification by an expert. -- cmh 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This does seem well-established (the NIH web page on CoQ10, classifies this as being the application of CoQ10 for which there is the best supporting evidence. The code B they give this application is defined as "Good scientific evidence for this use". Elroch 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have some doubts about the analysis on the before mentioned page since it is not possible to understand on what basis the classification is given. I have looked up some of the references and they weren't convincing at all. To the contrary both the AAFP as an revieuw done in the annals of pharmocotherapy doubt the use of Q10 as a treatment option.
Links: AAFP [4] Ann Pharmocoth [5]
As a "Vitamin", the Co Q should have Dietary Sources (natural, herbs, ...), along with the dried powder.-- Connection 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the German Wik says on sources: CoQ10 is abundant in organ meat (liver), oily fish (sardines, mackerel, nuts (e.g., pistacios), legumes, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, plantoils, cabbages,onions, potatoes, spnch, brussel sprouts, and broccoli. Cooking/boiling can destroy it. 211.225.37.47 ( talk) 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that the concentrations found in foods should be mcg/g and not mg/g. This would correlate with other sources of information but I cannot access the full article cited. Not sure if I should change it or not. Anyone? DrSparticle ( talk) 23:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This page looks great. Please make footnotes to the articles for each thing I've put a 'citation needed' flag next to, just to steamline the references. Thanks
Why does the body's production of CoQ decrease with age? What produces CoQ? Is it produced by a gland? What can be done to prevent the decrease of production in the first place? Beyond the classroom 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this citation will due for the "decrease with age" question:
Kalen A, Appelkvist EL, Dallner G. Age-related changes in the lipid compositions of rat and human tissues. Lipids. 1989;24(7):579-584. ( PMID 2779364)
This reference was used by the Linus Pauling Institute at OSU for a similar age related statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpauley ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement for supplement companies that sell this chemical compound. Much of the article is written in an an unencyclopedic informal tone. Some of the external links appear to be spam. Even some of the "references" are spam-like links to a ad-heavy Wiki site - hardly a reliable source. I'll take a crack at cleaning it up if someone more knowledgeable doesn't help out soon. Deli nk
I notice that cleanup also may be needed for the table that states quantities of Coenzyme Q10 in foods. Not only is the selection of foods listed very limited, but the source cited ([ http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/coq10.htm www.thefactsaboutfitness.com) also is questionable. This appears to be an unprofessional, apparently non-authoritative webpage that cites a further source for its information. I am not qualified to evaluate the ultimate source, however, I hope that someone who is will determine whether a better source can be cited, or the section may need to be removed. 129.176.151.10 ( talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Italic text== Title == I suggest to change the title to "Coenzyme Q10". In the research world (biochemical, clinical, etc.) and in real live the term "Coenzyme Q" is virtually not used. On Google "Coenzyme Q10" has about 1,1 million hits. "Coenzyme Q" has about 0,55 million hits, of which most, if you check, refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (or "Coenzyme Q-10") anyhow. Moreover, the biggest part of the references and of the external links of this article refer to "Coenzyme Q10" (and not to "Coenzyme Q"). So I suggest renaming the title and adding one paragraph about other (side-)chain length Qs. Furthermore, the international academic research is coordinated by "The International Coenzyme Q10 Association". So I also think that the drawing of CoQ3 should be changed in a drawing with CoQn (and saying that n=10 for CoQ10) Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
ah shut up —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.145.138.203 (
talk)
03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless somebody has other info I will delete the reference to Singh soon, because it was found that this researcher was engaged in fraud. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be put in one paragraph, which I plan to do in the near future. Current article does not describe well enough the main function of CoQ10 in the body: Energy. (95% of all ATP is made through intermediation of this molecule). 2nd is antioxidant: eg. against endogeneous made radicals (in the mitochondria) as well;it's unique antioxidant function in the recuperation of the active form of Vitamin E, its preventive function on LDL; etc. Peter Lambrechts 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless somebody has a good reason than I will delete the name of Dr. Wolf soon and have it replaced by Professor Karl Folkers and coworkers at Merck, Inc. The merit goes to Prof Folkers. Peter Lambrechts 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be advised that Peter Lambrechts is Business Developer for Kaneka Pharma, a manufacturer of Q10 dietary supplements. He may therefore not qualify as unbiased. Please review his edits and the references. 83.83.20.55 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm Dutch so please excuse my English... However, I found a sentence in the article that I just cannot agree with. It says something like: "Coenzyme Q10 is used widely to treat breast cancer, heart disease and gum disease". It was asked for a reference, but I think this is just BS. Coenzyme Q10 is just NOT widely used to treat any of these diseases, and certainly is not used widely to treat breast cancer or heart disease. The author who originally placed this sentence put a link there to support his claim, but this link now gives you a wikipedia-like page that has all kinds of claims that are not valid or proven, stating for example what a shame it is that people with heart disease sometimes get open heart surgery while they could also take some Q10 (and live happily ever after).
Perhaps, perhaps using coenzyme Q10 could help some people (in particular people who might be low in their natural Q10) in preventing disease. (I am not sure this has been proven without a doubt for ANY illness in normal people; I know of some very very rare metabolic disorders where people do not produce coenzyme Q10 for themselves and then you do get ill and treatment with Q10 helps.) . But this product surely can't cure you when you do have breast cancer or heart disease. You really need to see a real doctor!
So I found this sentence dangerous and untrue and removed it. Huijts 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. I found out later that on the removed link page it states that Q10 is widely used in Japan to treat heart disease and so on... Well, I wouldn't be able to check that... Anyone here living in Japan or being able to read Japanese?? Huijts 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed a series of suspect statements and testimonials posted into this discussion section from the overtly biased editor 'Gentlewar', who needs to read the 'Talk page guidelines' before reposting. 'Gentlewar', please be aware that Wikipedia discussion pages are not a venue for promoting a product but are, rather, a place to discuss the content of the article being discussed. The goal is to improve the unbiased and objective content of the article under discussion. Overtly biased and unsourced content, particularly enthusiastic and unsourced testimonials, make all of your posted content suspect. For instance, within your first sentence, the unsourced "Verified by the FDA" statement immediately appeared suspect. A brief visit to the FDA website found no 'verification' of the properties of this coenzyme, but only an FDA judgement of a statement submitted as required by regulation by a manufacturer. The manufacturer indicated that they were making certain statments about their sold nutrient(s). Their statements included the following: "Research on CoQ- 10 has identified its role as a powerful antioxidant and has indicated that CoQ-10 supplementation may provide benefit in certain health conditions. In particular, CoQ-10 has been used to help maintain a healthy heart." (emphasis added) The FDA response to the statements included: "We certify the information in this notice is complete and accurate, and we have substantiation that the above statement(s) is truthful and not misleading." This is a far cry from "FDA verified". Finding your FDA statment to be overstated and unreferenced, and that your testimonials did not adhere to Wikipedia content standards, your posting has been deleted. Should you wish to repost, I would encourage you to first read the "Talk page guidelines" to determine how you might improve your discussion post towards the Wiki goals for content. Thanks.
Lcph88 (
talk)
22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reference 23 shows a nice charts that explains Coq10 synthesis and how statins interfere with its production, but isn't there somewhat more authoritative available? Fogr4 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the CoQ10 page is included as a member of the Electron transport/oxidative phosphorylation system, shouldn't there be at least a brief section regarding conversion of ubiquinone to ubiquinol and its essential role in shuttling e- from Complexes I and II to complex III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.105.62 ( talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the table near the end of the article, the head of each column contains a strange symbol, a bow tie in a box, with no explanation. What does this symbol represent? Does it belong there at all? Is it graffiti? Jedwards01 ( talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
According to ( doi:10.1016/0925-4439(95)00028-3 ) Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1271 (1995) 195-204, Biochemical, physiological and medical aspects of ubiquinone function, Lars Ernster 3.,, Gustav Dallner a.b:
Ubiquinone, under the name coenzyme Q, was put on the metabolic map by Crane et al. [1] in 1957. It was proposed to be a component of the mitochondrial respira- tory chain, mediating electron transport between NADH and succinate dehydrogenases and the cytochrome system. Its structure was determined by Folkers and his colleagues [2] in 1958, and was found to be identical to that of a quinone earlier described by Morton and associates [3] and called by them ubiquinone, with reference to its ubiquitous occurrence in various tissues (Fig. 1). Ubiquinone became the ~official' name of the compound, established in 1975 by the IUPAC-1UB Commission on Biochemical Nomen- clature [4].
-- Rajah ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not find a section on Ubiquinol here. My husband and I both noticed an immediate increase in energy the first day we took a coQ10 supplement. (He takes 200 mg/day, I take 100 mg/day.) We are both in our 60's. Nothing seems to disturb his sleep, but that is one of his natural physical gifts - to be a sound sleeper.
I would like more information about ubiquinol. I have seen claims that it is absorbed up to 8X better than Co Q-10, and, therefore, that a smaller dosage is necessary. -- Allison14 ( talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Allsion14
I think there should be a section on how Q10 is used in the cosmetic industry. 142.166.189.202 ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The bottle I have of Q10 has the following warning - "Do not take while on warfarin therapy without medical advice"
gioto ( talk) 01:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok Google is your friend!
An article about the possible role for Q10 in cancer treatment has been compiled by the National Cancer Institute [9]. This reliable secondary source should be integrated in the article. MaxPont ( talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
why is there no mention whatsoever about it being very popular in cosmetic products? (i guess it used to be more popular, but it's still around) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.145.7 ( talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In two words: commercial advertising. No earth-shaking studies have come out in support of this product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 00:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Could mention "In one phase 2 clinical trial, CoQ10 significantly slowed the progression of Parkinson’s disease (Beal MF 2003)." Found "COENZYME Q10 SLOWS PROGRESSION OF EARLY PARKINSON’S DISEASE " (ref: Shults et al. "Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline." Archives of Neurology, October 2002, Vol. 59, No. 10, pp. 1541-1550.) Also covered in [10] - Started entry on main page. Rod57 ( talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The article does not mention side-effects of taking Co Q10 such as insomnia. See for example "Web MD" and "Mayo Clinic" Jerryfern ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
From the web:
This is not an uncommon side effect - just not well studied as CoQ10 is not a patentable drug. Not everyone seems effected, but those of us that are, this brain-fog is sever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This article goes straight from biochemistry to supplementation (without using the word) with no mention of sufficiency/deficiency in human health or performance or whether supplementation has any proven benefit at all in individuals who are not in some way already deficient.
I would almost prefer to see Q10 supplementation broken out as a separate page to keep the science and speculation better partitioned. (I tend to lump observational studies under speculation as per Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. On a good day, these studies amount to worthwhile speculation.)
Frequency and intensity? Frequency statistics suffer from weak tails. How strong would the adverse effects need to be for these studies to have detected them (and at what predetermined level of significance?)
If there's not yet any research establishing human norms of sufficiency, could this article manage to point this out before jumping straight into supplementation? — MaxEnt 22:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Not one mention of WP:MEDRS on this talk page yet?! I'm going to mark the "Supplementation benefits" section with WP:NPOV, as I don't see something more specific for MEDRS problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ubiquinone redirects here, which deals with Q10 and has consequently a strong human focus. There should be a page with all the various terpenylated quinones (plastoquinone, menaquinone, ubiquinone etc), but I can't seem to find it. This page sould have a for hatnote to that page if it exists as major quinone analysis is very important in bacteriology and has nothing to do with humans. Anyone seen this page? -- Squidonius ( talk) 01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My ophthalmologist prescribed 100mg of CoQ10 to improve my eye health after suffering from a Iritis attack and having previously had a retinal detachment. She got this information ta a conference she recently attended. I'm hoping someone passionate about this subject finds some good objective info on eye health and CoQ10 and updates the wiki article. Thanks. Grandeandy ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The case has been clearly made in a review study from 1995 (British Dental Journal) that there is absolutely no beneficial effect on Periodontal Disease. Most studies proving otherwise are out dated, in-vitro or have serious errors in their set-up or statistics. Bruno Loos makes a good case about this in the Dutch Dental Journal (Nederlands Tandartsenblad). Based on this, Pharma Nord was sued and sentenced in the Netherlands for keeping on the false claims on Q10 and Periodontal Disease. Case was filed by the Dutch Academy of Periodontics (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Parodontologie) and the Dutch Consumers Alliance (Consumentenbond).
It's pretty much a clear case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
... And to my friend User:HMman: I did NOT remove ANY original research. Read the article, all the previous references are still there, but placed in the right context. The right context should be that Review studies supersede case-studies, in-vitro research and even clinical trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) -- DeTandarts ( talk) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
On a personal note; if I may; The frustrating thing about community editing efforts, like Wikipedia, is that you start writing about something that interests you (fun!)and you end up having to explain basic medical science to people (usually I get payed for lectures!). So please make changes if the translation is not correct or exact but don't make me explain medical basics any more! -- DeTandarts ( talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been more than a year since I noted the citations, when given, for most of the claims of beneficial health are very much suspect--- yet the article is still inappropriately biased with claims that are not supported by the evidence. Citing a source that itself states "many people take CoQ10 supplements for [fill in the health benefit]" is *NOT* a valid citation that supports the claimed benefit. I suggest a very aggressive re-write, adding qualifiers to the many low-confidence citations so that the article reflects what the actual citations state, and not what the writers wish the citations had stated. This will upset "true believers" in the supplement, but the science at this point (November 2012) still does not support most of the beneficial claims being made. -- Desertphile ( talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ubiquinone redirects here which talks only about Q10, the eukaryotic and alphaproteobacterial version, yet I cannot seem to find any article of the other variants. E. coli uses Q8, Psuedomonas Q9 and Legionella Q12, despite all three's membership in the same class, and Bergey's manual has tables upon tables of quinone analysis. The article menaquinone, its anaerobic counterpart, redirects to vitamin K, which talks only about its bizarre usage in Eukaryotes. My first guess it that this is not a gap in wikipedia but a bad navigation problem. However, I cannot seem to find anything. Anyone any the wiser? -- Squidonius ( talk) 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I remember reading in the Wikipedia page for COQ10 several years ago a couple of things which are now missing. They are very basic things and should not be up for disupte. One was how the substance was named, that it was given the name Ubidecarinone because it was found everywhere, hence the Ubi from "ubiquitous". This is now missing completely. Is this because it shows how benign this substance is and how basic to life it is? The other thing I remember reading was that COQ10 was a component in cell membranes and the Myelin Sheath. Any reference to this has also been deleted. Finally, it used to say that it was needed in those organs which had the highest need for energy and listed the heart, liver and BRAIN, now it has omitted the brain and says kidneys. Why has the brain been replaced by the kidneys? Any reference to COQ10 being beneficial to ANYTHING has pretty-much been removed and all references now cite that more or less nothing has ever been shown as to it's usefulness. Overall the page now gives a view that this substance is only relevant in small selective areas, and that it has virtually no benefit other than energy production in cells. I do not work for any company and am in no way associated with the COQ10 industry, other than a consumer of it. I have used it for a decade to prevent heart palpitations caused by a second nerve in my heart, I take 250mg a day and my heart behaves, I stop taking it and my irregular heartbeat returns after a few weeks and I have an episode. I have stopped and started using it many times over the years and it has been proven in my case to have benefit to my heart operating correctly, IN MY CASE. I understand that that anecdotal evidence such as this is not admissible on a Wikipedia page and am not requesting such to be added, however I find it concerning in the extreme that very basic information on COQ10 which might give the impression it is a benign substance (which it is) and which was there for a long time initially has now been removed and also that all references to ANY benefits noted in any trials anywhere have also been removed, giving the impression that it is of no use to anyone. This is absolutely untrue.
I would definitely like to see the information on how COQ10 is part of the make-up of cell membranes and Myelin returned to this page, plus the information removed about why it was given its name coming from the word "ubiquitous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurusthecat ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
TaurusTheCat have had this amazing situation of Coenzyme Q and your heart palpitations looked at by the community of cardiologists and maybe even neurologists? CoQ is all about electron flow; and however the redox poise is set up in your particular heart, it's got to be indicative of JUST how this mysterious system is regulated --- electronically. OTOH -- you don't need the hassle. Richard8081 ( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Pterins were first discovered in the pigments of butterfly wings (hence the origin of their name, from the Greek pteron (πτερόν), [1] wing
source: {{ Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing
A more recent Cochrane review is available on CoQ10 for heart failure.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)Much of what is included now does not belong there.
Speculation such as, "Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases" is not appropriate.
"the use of Coenzyme Q10 was associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA) of clinical status..." is gross cherry picking edit as the full sentence concludes "Although coenzyme Q10 is associated with improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status and exercise capacity, the evidence is based on small trial numbers and is thus incomplete." and is not congruent with the current analysis, "There were insufficient data to compare results for total mortality, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation, NYHA clinical status...". Not to mention, "We included the data from seven studies with a total of 914 patients (Adarsh 2008; Berman 2004; Keogh 2003; Khatta 2000; Kocharian 2009; Morisco 1993; Munkholm 1999), which were at risk of bias." and "For the remaining outcomes (New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of clinical status, symptoms improvement as measured using the six-minute walk test), we could not combine any two studies together and all results came from individual studies."
The conclusion of the earlier analysis, "No change in practice is warranted at this time as more high quality and larger studies need to be conducted" is substantially different in the new review, "This review provides no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for patients with heart failure." and importantly, "Until further evidence emerges to support the use of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure, there might be a need to re-evaluate whether further trials testing coenzyme Q10 in heart failure are desirable."
An update of this section is in order. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of information from a single study that was all based on the primary study itself. WP:MEDRS directs editors to use secondary sources. WP:NPOV provides guidance on WP:DUE weight. I have created this section for discussion of adding information from this study to the article. At this point it seems primary and undue. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coenzyme Q10/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
hypothetical-
27 y.o. history of CVA currently on Heprin, Coumadin, Plavix please explain drug interactions, side effects, molecular, & biological benefits of taking 150 mg qd. im ready for the correct and truthful answer. these miss nomers need to be added. yu could potentially kill someone without all the correct information. Print it all. Dr. erinhed? |
Last edited at 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Minus the overlinking, the unwarranted emphasis, the linkspam, and the questionable deletion; is there anything in these edits that is actually worth restoring? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I just put a few spaces in the middle of the SMILES representation string so that the infobox didn't take up 90% of the screen horizontally.. How should this be done "correctly"? I don't know how SMILES representation works, so the breaks may not be in places that "make sense". Jimw338 ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
HMG-CoA reductase is in the midddle of the mevalonate pathway but it's not clear how that relates to the 3 steps listed. Need more detail please. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Now says "Genes involved include PDSS1, PDSS2, COQ2, and ADCK3(COQ8,CABC1).[37]" but ADCK3 seems to be involved in the respiration pathway not the biosynthesis of Co Q10. (ref doesn't show online content to support use) PDSS1/2 seem to build the side chain, and COQ2 joins the 2 parts. Can we say that ? - Rod57 ( talk) 11:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In the line: "There are three redox states of CoQ10: fully oxidized (ubiquinone), semiquinone (ubisemiquinone), and fully reduced (ubiquinol)."
Is "semi-quinone" actually supposed to be "semi-oxidized"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF95:D469:8009:30BB:A07A:9C93 ( talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The health section in this article more or less says that no study has ever found that it really does anything. Should this be cleaned out? JSR ( talk) 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Chicken heart - who eats chicken heart? People who come to this article are often looking for dietary advice on sources of CoQ10. Chicken (muscle) is a very popular food source, and an alternative to red meat, but is not listed. On the Livestrong site it indicates that chicken contains about half that of beef and Linus Pauling Institute agrees with this ( http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/coenzyme-Q10). This would be useful to know. Andrew ranfurly ( talk) 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Chicken muscle should be listed, however, people DO eat chicken heart. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.124.116.101 (
talk)
17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Chicken heart is certainly a food, and available as such from butchers here in USA. It's instructional to list in any event, because CoQ10 concentration tend to be higher in organ meats, and also because the heart naturally has higher concentration on account of the constant energy demands. Drsruli ( talk) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coenzyme Q10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
These two sections present no useful information, are WP:PRIMARY and certainly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, and are unencyclopedic. Removed here for discussion, if warranted. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The article treats ubiquinone and CoQ10 as being synonymous, when they are not. The article itself says that the 10 refers to the number of isoprenyl subunits while also showing that as few as 6 may be present. I.e. CoQ10 is a specific kind of ubiquinone and ubiquinone (Coenzyme Q) can range from CoQ6 to CoQ10. I’m not an expert in organic chemistry (I’m an Environmental Science major), but I believe this warrants a reorganization of the article or making a separate article for CoQ and CoQ10. CoQ10 should not be placed hierarchically above ubiquinone. Jwfelder ( talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we conclude that CoQ10 is an effective and safe supplement for reducing fatigue symptoms." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9449413/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20results%20of,supplement%20for%20reducing%20fatigue%20symptoms. also https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30935528/ but https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22682875/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.63.86 ( talk) 17:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)