Here is a list of issues, most of which are related to
GA criteria. I can't see anything else at the moment that makes the article not meet them.
"is a type of experimental drug which shares many of the desirable anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties of classical glucocorticoid drugs but with fewer side effects such as skin atrophy" it's not proven until there have been clinical trials
Boghog2 has written a detailed account of that mechanism. I don't have access to the source you mentioned, so I don't want to exchange the reference without knowing what Schäcke actually says. Feel free to do it yourself if you object to the German source. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Mechanism of action section: when saying it causes an effect, say which model (mouse? cell line?)
Done for some of the physiological effects, and will try to source and re-add the rest later. (Note to self:
catabolic and
lipolytic action, atrophy of muscle and
connective tissue.) Should I do the same with the molecular mechanisms (up-regulation of COX etc. etc.)? That will need some time, but of course I'll do it if you think it is necessary. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Potential applications last paragraph: give reference
Referenced statement that the antiproliferative properties of GCs are used in psoriasis. The second sentence, "SEGRAs would likely be less effective in such conditions", is hard to source. My main intention with this paragraph was to show that transactivation is not all bad (just as COX-2 is not all bad), and that SEGRAs are unlikely to render CGs obsolete. What do you think, can it be saved somehow? --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
in vitro: means different things in different disciplines, avoid the word
The wikilinking in general is in bad shape, with metabolic linked when about metabolic side-effects, infection instead of eye infection, connective tissue when discussig atrophy of it
It's no big thing ofc. I just think such links (metabolic - which I'm guessing in this case would mean liver function; the eye infection one is fine now) are more often an annoyance than they help someone.
Narayanese (
talk)
21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
pictures: add sources to the image description pages or captions
"It is testing concentrations of 0.01%" what type of percent? Don't you normally count in weight?
Usually m/m is implied, but this is hard to source and doesn't make much difference anyway for an organic compound in an organic/water ointment. My point was to show that the therapeutic concentration will probably be between 0.01% and 0.1% as opposed to, say, 5%. I don't think it is important to know whether it is 0.008 or 0.012% (m/m). --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A concern from me: Do you think
this source establishes R configuration of ZK 216348 (OH in front)? Fig. 1 looks much like it in my opinion, but the text only calls it the (+)-enantiomer which isn't helpful. The other structures of trifluoropropanolamines are
here and
here. Both look like R but aren't exactly clear. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Here is a list of issues, most of which are related to
GA criteria. I can't see anything else at the moment that makes the article not meet them.
"is a type of experimental drug which shares many of the desirable anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties of classical glucocorticoid drugs but with fewer side effects such as skin atrophy" it's not proven until there have been clinical trials
Boghog2 has written a detailed account of that mechanism. I don't have access to the source you mentioned, so I don't want to exchange the reference without knowing what Schäcke actually says. Feel free to do it yourself if you object to the German source. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Mechanism of action section: when saying it causes an effect, say which model (mouse? cell line?)
Done for some of the physiological effects, and will try to source and re-add the rest later. (Note to self:
catabolic and
lipolytic action, atrophy of muscle and
connective tissue.) Should I do the same with the molecular mechanisms (up-regulation of COX etc. etc.)? That will need some time, but of course I'll do it if you think it is necessary. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Potential applications last paragraph: give reference
Referenced statement that the antiproliferative properties of GCs are used in psoriasis. The second sentence, "SEGRAs would likely be less effective in such conditions", is hard to source. My main intention with this paragraph was to show that transactivation is not all bad (just as COX-2 is not all bad), and that SEGRAs are unlikely to render CGs obsolete. What do you think, can it be saved somehow? --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)reply
in vitro: means different things in different disciplines, avoid the word
The wikilinking in general is in bad shape, with metabolic linked when about metabolic side-effects, infection instead of eye infection, connective tissue when discussig atrophy of it
It's no big thing ofc. I just think such links (metabolic - which I'm guessing in this case would mean liver function; the eye infection one is fine now) are more often an annoyance than they help someone.
Narayanese (
talk)
21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)reply
pictures: add sources to the image description pages or captions
"It is testing concentrations of 0.01%" what type of percent? Don't you normally count in weight?
Usually m/m is implied, but this is hard to source and doesn't make much difference anyway for an organic compound in an organic/water ointment. My point was to show that the therapeutic concentration will probably be between 0.01% and 0.1% as opposed to, say, 5%. I don't think it is important to know whether it is 0.008 or 0.012% (m/m). --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A concern from me: Do you think
this source establishes R configuration of ZK 216348 (OH in front)? Fig. 1 looks much like it in my opinion, but the text only calls it the (+)-enantiomer which isn't helpful. The other structures of trifluoropropanolamines are
here and
here. Both look like R but aren't exactly clear. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply