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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The terms Vit-C and Ascorbic Acid are often used interchangeably and it appears this is quite misleading. From what I am learning Vit-C is properly called L-ascorbate or L-ascorbic acid, and is a specific ion of ascorbic acid. The difference referred to only by the readily overlooked "L" (referring to the specific ion) appears to me to be quite significant. However, the article seems to (perhaps high-handedly in my opinion) promote the muddling by adopting a (probably academically correct) typography (upper case "L" in smaller point size and different typeface with an upper case "A") that makes the necessary distinction almost invisible to a non-technical/academic reader. I've made a minor change to the first paragraph to calrify the distinction from the outset but in my opinion the typography in general should changed from the academic/technical to the general, to align with the mission and readership of Wiki. I also think that the term L-ascorbate could be used, in preference to L-ascorbic acid (assuming that would still techically correct), to avoid promoting the muddle. Thes minor quasi-typographic changes in my opinion would maintain the distinction between the ion (Vit-C) and the base chemical (ascorbic acid). LookingGlass ( talk) 07:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As the article details, Szent-Györgyi suspected that hexuronic acid from adrenals might be the vitamin C known from animal assays, but he didn't know the stereochemistry even of this substance, although he had a sample made from adrenals. That was finally proven when Haworth synthesized L-hexuronic acid, a sugar, in 1933, and proved that THIS was vitamin C, not D-hexuronic acid (this chemist was the great Haworth of Haworth projections, so he surely knew what steroisomer he was working with). The L comes from the stereochem in D-glucose (dextrose) which carries over, when this stuff is made enzymatically in the body from dextrose (D-glucose), as D-glucose goes to L-gulonolactone. Szent-Györgyi and Haworth proposed that this stuff be called ascorbic acid (in honor of its vitamin activity, which the D-ascorbate largely lacks) and so when you see ascorbic acid, it means L-ascorbic acid and not D-ascorbic acid. Just as "glucose" means D-glucose and not L-glucose.
However, the conventions of sugar chemistry demand that when there are enantiomers possible for any chemical, you should write which enantiomer is meant. Thus, chemically, the stuff is L-ascorbic acid. D-ascorbic acid is not found in nature, but can be made, and (interestingly) is nearly worthless as a vitamin (although of course just as good as an antioxidant, since oxygen and free radicals don't care about enantiomerism). So D-ascorbate is NOT a vitamer, and is not vitamin C. We probably should not write L-ascorbic acid except when defining this (as in the lede) and when talking about the chemistry of the molecule. It's also a proper name for the Ascorbic acid wiki, but they decided not to do it, due to problems with the D, which should be capitalized but small case and bolded. So the Wiki is Ascorbic acid but only because Wikis titles are capitalized AS titles. The term ascorbic acid links fine, since links are not cap sensitive. Finally, with all sugars it is standard that the D or L for mirror-image sugar stereoisomers (enantiomers) to be bolded and written upper-case, but a type-size smaller. So, technically, we should always write L-ascorbate. But this is a lot of trouble, and it hasn't been done even in all the instances where L-ascorbate is proper, since the chemical is being discussed. Okay? I'll try to fix some of this in the article, so some problems may be gone when you read this. I'll refer to here on TALK for the rationale. S B H arris 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This article belongs to the "Antidepressants" category, however the article itself doesn't say anything about this except that depression may arise as a symptom from scurvy. I think either the category tag should be removed, or some info regarding vitamin C as an antidepressant should be added to the text. ✎ HannesP · talk 20:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Heat destroys Vitamin C ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar ( talk • contribs)
The article states "However, the fact that the enantiomer D-ascorbate (not found in nature) has identical antioxidant activity to L-ascorbate, yet far less vitamin activity,[3] underscores the fact that most of the function of L-ascorbate as a vitamin relies not on its antioxidant properties, but upon enzymic reactions that are stereospecific."
Ascorbate is used to regenerate Vit E and glutatione. Granted, this is an enzymatically mediated process. But it seems like its result is also to improve the body's anti-oxidant activity. The current wording, while technically accurate, is potentially confusing.
Interaction of ascorbate and alpha-tocopherol. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304060
Tocopherol and glutathione also rely on AA for regeneration back to their active isoforms. http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Antioxidants/VitaminC.html
-- Ryan W ( talk) 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference 132 isn't relevant and I think it might need to be removed. I may be wrong so I am asking for someone to check it out. Basically the link is working perfectly fine but doesn't seem relevant to what it is referencing. Richboy999 ( talk) 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not vitamin C that increases iron absorption, only ascorbic acid does. Otherwise please add sources describing the iron uptake with e.g. sodium ascorbate (that is also vitamin C!). Or change above sentence into "As ascorbic acid enhances iron absorption..." -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Am I right that animals produce not ascorbic acid but only sodium ascorbat in their liver? This would explain why some people have toxic effect by taking several grams of ascorbic acid: They should take sodium ascorbate instead, because only ascorbate is bioavailable. -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC) By the way the described "Tolerable Upper Intake Level" is for ascorbic acid and not sodium ascorbate. You can take about 25 grams sodium ascorbate daily without any problems. The amount of sodium ascorbate produced in a human without the genetic mutation would be 15-25 grams for an adult. -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
[1] -- megA ( talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed an entry stating that the "Mica Muro" contained 500mg/100g. The entry was added in from August 2011, by an IP that has never made any other edits, and was unsourced. The term does not exist on Wikipedia, and a search for this term elsewhere only seems to bring up lists taken from Wikipedia itself. The entry has been widely cited over the past few years. It appears to be a fake entry that has remained unspotted for 3 years. The source given for the list itself is no longer at the link provided, so the entire table may contain dubious info. Greenman ( talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It has huge amounts of C, the issue is that when cooked it loses some of it. Most of these "studies" fail to realize that. -- 193.92.17.25 ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to reorganize this article. There should be main sections about Biosynthesis and Physiology. I would also merge 2.5 Supplementation, 5 Daily requirements, and 8 Dietary sources into one section such as "Vitamin C in (human?) diet". Alternatively, 2.5 Supplementation could be combined with 7 Adverse effects as the former almost exclusively deals with medical conditions. The section on Evolution doesn't make sense as Vitamin C doesn't evolve. The only thing that does evolve are the enzymes (or their encoding genes) that are involved in Vitamin C metabolism. Peteruetz ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The E number for Vitamin C (E300) is missing. What would be a good place to put it? Under "identifiers", maybe? -- Benimation ( talk) 16:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Vitamin C. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem like Vitamin C megadosage has much content that isn't already or can't be discussed in the main article. It seems like an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Thoughts? Sizeofint ( talk) 06:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. It is not an unnecessary content fork especially as the megadosage article is already well-organized and quite large. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 13:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose . I am against merger . But strangely there are no links from either Vitamin C or Vitamin C and the common cold to the mega-dosage article. These should be in place. Lumos3 ( talk) 14:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Vitamin C. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
in the Possible Side Effects section this sentence: " ingesting specific oxidizing substances, such as very large dosages of vitamin C" seems to me both unclearly worded and in contradiction with the antioxidant property of vitamin-C (which is mentioned in the first section of the article).
178.164.137.95 ( talk) 09:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in question is no longer in the possible side effects section. In the Dietary Reference Intake text there is speculation about whether vitamin C in large amounts can act as a pro-oxidant, but the evidence was very weak. David notMD ( talk) 09:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
How do people feel about a proposal to delete the two sentences and a reference (see below) from Daily Requirements? The recommendation from the reference (1000 mg) is radically different from every government position on this vitamin. The journal in question has a low Impact Factor. David notMD ( talk) 15:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"There is continuing debate within the scientific community over the best dose schedule (the amount and frequency of intake) of vitamin C for maintaining optimal health in humans. A 2008 review recommended 1,000 mg/day as a supplement, in addition to what is consumed from food. [1]
References
References
Vitamin C became a Good article in 2007, then delisted in 2010. Has there been enough improvement that it should be reconsidered? David notMD ( talk) 15:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Generally I put the full ref in the lead to make translation easier. Therefore returned. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Is important for both dietary and supplement use. Therefore it should go later in the article in my opinion, similar to what we do with vitamin D. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"The history of vitamin C is closely tied to seagoing voyage. After months at sea, sailors became afflicted with a disease that came to be named scurvy. Navy surgeons, among them James Lind of the British Navy, confirmed that foods such as lemons, limes, oranges and cabbage would prevent the disease. From 1928 to 1932, Albert Szent-Györgyi and others worked to isolate the antiscorbutic compound and identify its chemical structure. [1]"
A ref more recent than 1932 would be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We place a section on "biology" for substances that are both an important molecule normally within humans and are a medication.
In this situation this substance is not make within humans but is either dietary or a supplement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
IMO this should not be the first paragraph of the the article.
"The loss of biosynthesis capacity occurred multiple times in evolution, as it is lacking in humans, some primates, most fish, most bats, some birds and guinea pigs. Species unable to synthesize vitamin C get it from food. Vitamin C performs numerous physiological functions, including the synthesis of collagen, carnitine, and neurotransmitters. [2] [3] Vitamin C is found in high concentrations in cells of the immune system and is depleted quickly during infections, implying an essential role in immunity. [2] [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The Linus Pauling Institute is slightly controversial in that he promoted high dose vitamin C.
Usually we put stuff about importance in other animals lower in the article. That the ability to make the substance was lost multiple times during evolution is also not key
We already mention it is important in tissue repair in the second paragraph. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The increased dietary requirement of vitamin C in smokers should be mentioned in this article. [1] [2] Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
A DYK for Vitamin C is now in Prep: "...that in 1934 vitamin C was the first synthetic vitamin to be trademarked (as Redoxon) and marketed?" So for any further editing of the first paragraph in the Discovery section. please don't delete the text and citations that support this. David notMD ( talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Both mean the same and thus IMO the first is fine in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I also suggest we all study the definition of pilpul David notMD ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The Significance section is poorly written. I had intended to do a complete rewrite as part of the Good Article process, but there was a push to bring that to closure. Still my intention. I have posted the replaced version below (yes, I know I wrote I was going to post the proposed text here first, but I didn't). A reminder - as I stated when I began the GA process, I have a COI, in that I am a science consultant to companies in the dietary supplement industry (none of whom are aware that I am a Wikipedia editor). My approach here is to adhere to NPOV. David notMD ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for certain animals including humans. [1] Vitamin C describes several vitamers that have vitamin C activity in animals, including ascorbic acid and its salts, and some oxidized forms of the molecule like dehydroascorbic acid. Ascorbate and ascorbic acid – represented by the collective term, vitamin C – are both naturally present in the body when either of these is introduced into cells, since the forms interconvert according to pH. Vitamin C is a cofactor in at least eight enzymatic reactions, including several collagen synthesis reactions that, when dysfunctional, cause the most severe symptoms of scurvy. [1] [2] In animals, these reactions are especially important in wound-healing and in preventing bleeding from capillaries. [1]
The biological role of vitamin C is to act as a reducing agent, donating electrons to various enzymatic and non-enzymatic reactions. [1] The one- and two-electron oxidized forms of vitamin C, semidehydroascorbic acid and dehydroascorbic acid, respectively, can be reduced in the body by glutathione and NADPH-dependent enzymatic mechanisms. [3] [4] The presence of glutathione in cells and extracellular fluids helps maintain ascorbate in a reduced state. [5]
In humans, adequate vitamin C intake results from consumption of raw plant foods or fortified foods, providing antioxidant functions from its ability to donate electrons, and so lessen oxidative stress. [1] [6] Vitamin C is an enzyme cofactor for the biosynthesis of many biochemicals required for normal metabolism. [1] [7] It is a substrate for ascorbate peroxidase in plants. This enzyme utilizes ascorbate to neutralize toxic hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by converting it to water (H2O). [8]
Vitamin C is required for a range of essential metabolic reactions in all animals and plants. [9] Although it is made internally by almost all vertebrates, there are exceptions which do not synthesize it, including humans, [1] tarsiers, and monkeys. [10]
References
DRItext
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).UKFSA Risk
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
lpi2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vitamin C. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The redirect D-ascorbic acid, which currently targets Vitamin C, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 19#D-ascorbic acid. You are invited to contribute to that discussion as comments from those who understand the subject would be beneficial. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Moot - I answered my initial question; I'll need to find a SCIRS-quality citation before including the enzymes that are missing from
Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics anyway.
|
---|
@ Boghog: I was trying to verify the number of enzymes that vitamin C acts as a cofactor for, so I went to a random enzyme page which utilizes it as a cofactor (DA beta-hydroxylase) and checked the GO terms for ones that appeared relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the definitions for GO:0031418 ("L-ascorbic acid binding") describe activity as a cofactor and GO:0016715 (really long descriptor) describe a specific form of activity as a substrate? If the former GO term does describe a cofactor interaction, then it looks like there's 20 human enzymes or enzyme subunits for which vitamin C serves as a cofactor, not just the 8 that are listed in this article in Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics. Based upon Cofactor (biochemistry)#Vitamins and derivatives, I'd assume it acts as an electron donor at all of those enzymes/subunits, although I'm not sure how to easily verify that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Nevermind. I'm just putting this table here for cross-referencing later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gene/product identifier | Full name of gene or gene product | mentioned? |
---|---|---|
N/A - not a cofactor ( UNIPROT) | ||
DBH | Dopamine beta-hydroxylase | Y |
EGLN1 | Egl nine homolog 1 | Y |
EGLN2 | Egl nine homolog 2 | Y |
EGLN3 | Egl nine homolog 3 | Y |
OGFOD1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase OGFOD1 | |
OGFOD2 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 2 | |
OGFOD3 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 3 | |
P3H1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 1 | Y |
P3H2 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 2 | Y |
P3H3 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 3 | Y |
P4HA1 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 | Y |
P4HA2 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-2 | Y |
P4HA3 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-3 | Y |
P4HTM | Transmembrane prolyl 4-hydroxylase | Y |
PAM | Peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase | Y |
PHYH | Phytanoyl-CoA dioxygenase, peroxisomal | |
PLOD1 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 1 | Y |
PLOD2 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 | Y |
PLOD3 | Multifunctional procollagen lysine hydroxylase and glycosyltransferase LH3 | Y |
The first sentence should be write in easier to understand language:
1) "Vitamin C is a vitamin, the chemical compound ascorbic acid C6H8O6, specifically the enantiomer L-ascorbic acid."
is significantly more complicated than
2) "Vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid and L-ascorbic acid, is a vitamin found in food and used as a dietary supplement"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Also generally we organize the lead such that it follows the layout of the body of the text.
This is key "Evidence does not support use in the general population for the prevention of the common cold."
With this by itself being undue "There is, however, some evidence that regular use may shorten the length of colds."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Per "Deficiency of vitamin C causes scurvy, which used to plague sailors in long voyages until the 18th century."
The issue in sailors belong in the article on scurvy. And it did not "plague" sailors but commonly affected them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This ref and the text with it were removed. Why? It is a relatively recent meta-analysis. Luo J, Shen L, Zheng D (August 2014). "Association between vitamin C intake and lung cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis". Scientific Reports. 4: 6161. Bibcode:2014NatSR...4E6161L. doi:10.1038/srep06161. PMC 5381428. PMID 25145261. David notMD ( talk) 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
References
I apologize for stating that Shareck was a second meta-analysis. I did a PubMed limited to meta-analyses, but the search yield still puts a few articles in a box at the top that are NOT meta-analyses. My only excuse for not catching this is - pre-coffee moment. Given an older review of prospective studies [Cho E, Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, Albanes D, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Colditz GA, Feskanich D, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Giovannucci E, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Rohan TE, Sellers TA, Virtamo J, Willett WC, Smith-Warner SA. Intakes of vitamins A, C and E and folate and multivitamins and lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 8 prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;118(4):970-8. PubMed PMID: 16152626] did not support vitamin C reducing lung cancer risk, I will leave the article as it stands. David notMD ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Another section that should have been revised as part of the Good Article process. It has nothing about vitamin C in single-cell organisms, fungi or plants. As exists, repetitive and perhaps overlong on what happened in primates. David notMD ( talk) 14:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How vitamin C "works" ie it "is an essential nutrient involved in the repair of tissue and the enzymatic production of certain neurotransmitters" should go lower in the lead rather than the first paragraph in my opinion.
This is its mechanism of action and is fairly complicated. I also believe people are less interested in these details than that about the common cold. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Given that both of you are eyeballing this article, I am again suggesting that sentences in the lead such as "In 2015, the wholesale cost in the developing world was less than US$0.01 per tablet.[13]" feel to me like a static, non-informative fact. Similar sentences in other vitamin articles. Cost not further discussed in body of those article. DJ and I have been on opposite sides of this debate in the past. David notMD ( talk) 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I am against cost per treatment for any vitamin or mineral. A point I want to state here even though I may not attempt to incorporate this approach into the various vitamin articles: vitamin C deficiency to the point of scurvy is historically true but extremely rare in current world conditions. Thus, undue focus on need for vitamin C as a medically prescribed product, and no need to discuss a cost per daily treatment in this article. Other vitamins - folate, vitamin A... - have clearly been identified as needed to prevent or treat commonly occurring deficiency status in individuals, with known medical consequences if not treated, so a cost per daily (or other) prevention treatment in countries where such deficiencies are a matter of public health policy would be appropriate for those articles. There are also prescription treatments for diagnosed deficiencies (injected iron, high dose vit D, etc.). Even for these, I am against cost per treatment, but will not oppose. David notMD ( talk) 13:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
One source says the legal daily level for captive apes is 5,000 mg per day (the source froze up on me and I had to restart the computer), and in the past I've read that captive apes in the U.S. had to be given the human equivalent (per weight) of 3,200 mgs per day. Does anyone know the actual legal requirements? The mg recommended doses for humans is ridiculously low, and a comparison with recommended (or legally required) doses for captive gorillas, chimpanzees, and other primates would be an interesting addition to the page (unless it is there already and I'm missing it). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Moot - I answered my initial question; I'll need to find a SCIRS-quality citation before including the enzymes that are missing from
Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics anyway.
|
---|
@ Boghog: I was trying to verify the number of enzymes that vitamin C acts as a cofactor for, so I went to a random enzyme page which utilizes it as a cofactor (DA beta-hydroxylase) and checked the GO terms for ones that appeared relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the definitions for GO:0031418 ("L-ascorbic acid binding") describe activity as a cofactor and GO:0016715 (really long descriptor) describe a specific form of activity as a substrate? If the former GO term does describe a cofactor interaction, then it looks like there's 20 human enzymes or enzyme subunits for which vitamin C serves as a cofactor, not just the 8 that are listed in this article in Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics. Based upon Cofactor (biochemistry)#Vitamins and derivatives, I'd assume it acts as an electron donor at all of those enzymes/subunits, although I'm not sure how to easily verify that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Nevermind. I'm just putting this table here for cross-referencing later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gene/product identifier | Full name of gene or gene product | mentioned? |
---|---|---|
N/A - not a cofactor ( UNIPROT) | ||
DBH | Dopamine beta-hydroxylase | Y |
EGLN1 | Egl nine homolog 1 | Y |
EGLN2 | Egl nine homolog 2 | Y |
EGLN3 | Egl nine homolog 3 | Y |
OGFOD1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase OGFOD1 | |
OGFOD2 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 2 | |
OGFOD3 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 3 | |
P3H1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 1 | Y |
P3H2 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 2 | Y |
P3H3 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 3 | Y |
P4HA1 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 | Y |
P4HA2 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-2 | Y |
P4HA3 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-3 | Y |
P4HTM | Transmembrane prolyl 4-hydroxylase | Y |
PAM | Peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase | Y |
PHYH | Phytanoyl-CoA dioxygenase, peroxisomal | |
PLOD1 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 1 | Y |
PLOD2 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 | Y |
PLOD3 | Multifunctional procollagen lysine hydroxylase and glycosyltransferase LH3 | Y |
There is a lot of work put into this article in terms of reporting and comparing hard research. It would be nice to see a similar amount of attention paid to English style, if anyone has the inclination and time. The wording could be polished in many places. I mention it because this is turning into a good article and I would like to see more people reading it and enjoying the experience. Thanks. Alfarero ( talk) 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed text and two refs from the Cardio subsection. One [Ye Y, Li J, Yuan Z (2013). "Effect of antioxidant vitamin supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". PLOS ONE. 8 (2): e56803. PMID 23437244] was there in error, as it is a meta-analysis of combinations of antioxidant vitamins rather than solely vitamin C. Moser 2016 was removed because the quote from the abstract was misleading - the article as a whole was mixed in its assessment of vit C and cardio. Newer references should be sought. David notMD ( talk) 14:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
It states "Antioxidant vitamin supplementation has no effect on the incidence of major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, total death, and cardiac death." and specifically looked at "Antioxidant vitamin (vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C)"
I guess we could just go with this Cochrane review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28301692-vitamin-c-supplementation-for-the-primary-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease/
The problem with this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284213-vitamin-c-intake-circulating-vitamin-c-and-risk-of-stroke-a-meta-analysis-of-prospective-studies/ is it is prospective studies not RCTs. So hypothesis generating and this hypothesis does not appear to be true.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Much is made of non-primate species synthesizing more ascorbic acid than humans, and for some primates (gorilla) eating more than humans, but this article lacks a comparison of serum vitamin C across species. So far, have found mention that humans average 35-40 micromoles/L and cattle, 15 micromoles. Oddly, the article is also missing what is the normal range for humans, and a better definition of what are low and deficient serum values. David notMD ( talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I am removing the image of the goat and the caption (again). My position is that the caption - by stating that goats synthesize very large amounts of vitamin C (large in comparison to recommendations for consumption by humans), and increase synthesis when stressed, implies that humans should be consuming more vitamin C than currently recommended by government organizations, especially when stressed ('stress' not defined). The goat ref is dated 1973 and behind a paywall. David notMD ( talk) 11:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Chemistry of ascorbic acid#Wikidata items and interlanguages links. -- Mezze stagioni ( talk) 12:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This may be of interest and usable on the page, New York hospitals having good results with administering 1.5 grams of C several times a day (which sounds like normal daily usage to me, well or sick). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
PMID 26808119 (page 51) shows that as oral intake increases to 2500 mg/day, a plateau is reached around 200 mg/day. (No i.v. data in this article.) Elsewhere in the article, makes a point that the known physiological functions of vitamin C require a much lower concentration that is reached with diet intake in the RDA range. My opinion is that oral intake, regardless of amount, will not achieve the circulating and tissue concentrations that MIGHT have an effect on COVID-19. David notMD ( talk) 19:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Given that vitamin C has become part of rumor-world for COVID-19, I am going to put a short statement into the vitamin C article. David notMD ( talk) 21:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Intravenous vitamin C now has a short mention at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. Only the fact that there are ongoing clinical trials, nothing about plasma concentration or any prior published trials of intravenous vitamin C for sepsis or other serious illness. David notMD ( talk) 12:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) is part of Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance's the MATH+ protocol to treat COVID-19. See https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/FLCCC_Alliance-MATHplus_Protocol-2020-6-16.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR182.3013, Subpart D, ascorbic acid is defined as a "chemical preservative." [6] DextroseIsCornSugar ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see mention of large dose vitamin C and its affect on those with a glucose 6 Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency also known as favism. There are instances of death as the result of large dose vitamin C IV. An individual should be aware if they are deficient before self treating with large dose vitamin C. G6PD deficiency though considered rare is not so rare in some Mediterranean countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. 65.173.109.41 ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
On 9 April 2021 a sentence was added by User:Magnovvig to the Food additives subsection: "It may be used as a flour treatment agent used in breadmaking." Two references were included. My opinion is that the second, from the Federation of Bakers, is sufficient, and that the first, a link to an article in the Independent titled "THE SHOCKING TRUTH" that is a lengthy screed against all bread ingredients not organic, containing a short mention about vitamin C being an ingredient, is not needed. I deleted the first reference. Magnovvig restored it. I hold by my opinion that the Independent ref is not needed to support the very simple factual sentence that is supported by the other reference. I would appreciate hearing from others on this dispute. David notMD ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Cleared some citations needed. One remains in first paragraph of Chemistry. David notMD ( talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a great historical anecdote about scurvy in Richard Dana's Two Years Before the Mast, i.e. /info/en/?search=Two_Years_Before_the_Mast, where the author recounts a crew member falling sick and the symptoms--poking his arms made an indentation in the flesh, which did not spring back, as it had lost its elasticity. The brig hails another ship seeking provisions, fresh potatoes and onions. The sick crew member made a mush out of the onions and rubbed it on his gums. He was up in the shrouds within a couple hours. Might be a good addition. FYI. Cheers.
I removed the picture illustrating the synthesis of Ascorbic acid in mammals for the moment. ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Vitamin_C_Biosynthesis_in_Vertebrates.svg)
As the article and the sources of that section state correctly the synthesis goes via Gulonate, not Gluconate, as the image showed. Unfortunately I do not have a correct scheme at hand at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha ScorpiiA ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I can to the page looking to find out if this is one of the water soluble vitamins or one of the fat soluble ones. I would have thought that's a fairly basic and commonly needed piece of information since it affects how you take the in and how you should consume supliments. I couldn't find the information I was looking for, instead I got bogged down and confused by much more complicated chemistry. 209.93.48.118 ( talk) 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A meta-analysis shows positive results for using vitamin C to treat exercise-induced asthma. However, if I were to interpret this study in the way some editors would prefer, the only statement this study could possibly back up is "there is no good evidence of vitamin C for treating exercise-induced asthma", given the wording in the conclusion. What statement, if any, could we add to this article based on the study? MarshallKe ( talk) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Considering User:Zefr's removal of the section from Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction that was based on this source, I am inclined to add a statement to Vitamin C stating There is insufficient clinical evidence to support vitamin C as a treatment for exercise-induced asthma. MarshallKe ( talk) 23:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Zefr removed content and refs about high dose vitamin C and cancer from the Cancer subsection, but left a small amount of referenced content there on a 2015 review which concluded no benefit. There is also mention of high dose vitamin C and cancer in the History section, which remains. The first action was presumably taken because what was removed was early evidence from treatment success, later discredited by reviews that incorporated larger and more rigorously conducted clinical trials. A PubMed search conducted on 8 May 2022, limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, did not identify any reviews on intravenous ascorbic acid as cancer treatment that were more recent than the cited Jacobs 2015. Rather than edit warring in the article, I suggest future discussions first take place here. David notMD ( talk) 11:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat weak journal literature, but topical vitamin C widely marketed as a treatment for melasma and skin aging, especially strong marketing in Japan and South Korea as a dark spot lightening agent. Topical depigmenting and anti-aging products are often referred to as a 'serum.' This usage is not an existing article, hence not present on the Serum disambiguation page. David notMD ( talk) 10:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Umm, quackery...? Just a sprinkle of research on efficacy in Covid and lowering the mortality:
This article needs some serious updating.
Can we mention the Vitamin C treatment protocol used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic? (Also, perhaps in the "History" (Large Doses) section.) (Rather than the C-19 section.)
Drsruli (
talk) 20:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Of course, all megadosing is contentious. That's why I suggested that it (maybe) be put in the history section, similar to what was done for cancer therapy. (It's history, it happenned, it can be documented.) (I didn't mean to describe the protocol itself, but the event.) Drsruli ( talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Is Vitamin C and C-19 more contentious than Vitamin C and cancer? (In that case, then just mention it in the Other Diseases section. Along the lines of how it was included in History.) (Could also say that the C-19 use is relevant to Pauling because, coronaviruses.) [You just made me smile; "If Pauling were alive today..."] Drsruli ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
See article and below for mention that meta-analyses of clin trials for COVID treatment with vitamin C (mostly intravenous for severe cases) now incorporated as an article update. David notMD ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you ever find and add the amount of ascorbic acid required by law to be given to apes and monkeys in zoos, labs, etc.? In the 1990s this was, if I recall correctly and as we discussed previously, about the equivalent of 3,600 mgs in relationship to the average human. This is information which should be in the article, especially if you are going for feature status. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Checking for relevant meta-analyses and systematic reviews published after this became a Good Article in late 2017. David notMD ( talk) 04:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
A FA reviewer recommended consistency in reference page numbering and sentence versus title case in article titles. Addressing this is resulting in a large number of Edit summaries as ref fix (minor). David notMD ( talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The terms Vit-C and Ascorbic Acid are often used interchangeably and it appears this is quite misleading. From what I am learning Vit-C is properly called L-ascorbate or L-ascorbic acid, and is a specific ion of ascorbic acid. The difference referred to only by the readily overlooked "L" (referring to the specific ion) appears to me to be quite significant. However, the article seems to (perhaps high-handedly in my opinion) promote the muddling by adopting a (probably academically correct) typography (upper case "L" in smaller point size and different typeface with an upper case "A") that makes the necessary distinction almost invisible to a non-technical/academic reader. I've made a minor change to the first paragraph to calrify the distinction from the outset but in my opinion the typography in general should changed from the academic/technical to the general, to align with the mission and readership of Wiki. I also think that the term L-ascorbate could be used, in preference to L-ascorbic acid (assuming that would still techically correct), to avoid promoting the muddle. Thes minor quasi-typographic changes in my opinion would maintain the distinction between the ion (Vit-C) and the base chemical (ascorbic acid). LookingGlass ( talk) 07:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As the article details, Szent-Györgyi suspected that hexuronic acid from adrenals might be the vitamin C known from animal assays, but he didn't know the stereochemistry even of this substance, although he had a sample made from adrenals. That was finally proven when Haworth synthesized L-hexuronic acid, a sugar, in 1933, and proved that THIS was vitamin C, not D-hexuronic acid (this chemist was the great Haworth of Haworth projections, so he surely knew what steroisomer he was working with). The L comes from the stereochem in D-glucose (dextrose) which carries over, when this stuff is made enzymatically in the body from dextrose (D-glucose), as D-glucose goes to L-gulonolactone. Szent-Györgyi and Haworth proposed that this stuff be called ascorbic acid (in honor of its vitamin activity, which the D-ascorbate largely lacks) and so when you see ascorbic acid, it means L-ascorbic acid and not D-ascorbic acid. Just as "glucose" means D-glucose and not L-glucose.
However, the conventions of sugar chemistry demand that when there are enantiomers possible for any chemical, you should write which enantiomer is meant. Thus, chemically, the stuff is L-ascorbic acid. D-ascorbic acid is not found in nature, but can be made, and (interestingly) is nearly worthless as a vitamin (although of course just as good as an antioxidant, since oxygen and free radicals don't care about enantiomerism). So D-ascorbate is NOT a vitamer, and is not vitamin C. We probably should not write L-ascorbic acid except when defining this (as in the lede) and when talking about the chemistry of the molecule. It's also a proper name for the Ascorbic acid wiki, but they decided not to do it, due to problems with the D, which should be capitalized but small case and bolded. So the Wiki is Ascorbic acid but only because Wikis titles are capitalized AS titles. The term ascorbic acid links fine, since links are not cap sensitive. Finally, with all sugars it is standard that the D or L for mirror-image sugar stereoisomers (enantiomers) to be bolded and written upper-case, but a type-size smaller. So, technically, we should always write L-ascorbate. But this is a lot of trouble, and it hasn't been done even in all the instances where L-ascorbate is proper, since the chemical is being discussed. Okay? I'll try to fix some of this in the article, so some problems may be gone when you read this. I'll refer to here on TALK for the rationale. S B H arris 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This article belongs to the "Antidepressants" category, however the article itself doesn't say anything about this except that depression may arise as a symptom from scurvy. I think either the category tag should be removed, or some info regarding vitamin C as an antidepressant should be added to the text. ✎ HannesP · talk 20:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Heat destroys Vitamin C ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar ( talk • contribs)
The article states "However, the fact that the enantiomer D-ascorbate (not found in nature) has identical antioxidant activity to L-ascorbate, yet far less vitamin activity,[3] underscores the fact that most of the function of L-ascorbate as a vitamin relies not on its antioxidant properties, but upon enzymic reactions that are stereospecific."
Ascorbate is used to regenerate Vit E and glutatione. Granted, this is an enzymatically mediated process. But it seems like its result is also to improve the body's anti-oxidant activity. The current wording, while technically accurate, is potentially confusing.
Interaction of ascorbate and alpha-tocopherol. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304060
Tocopherol and glutathione also rely on AA for regeneration back to their active isoforms. http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Antioxidants/VitaminC.html
-- Ryan W ( talk) 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference 132 isn't relevant and I think it might need to be removed. I may be wrong so I am asking for someone to check it out. Basically the link is working perfectly fine but doesn't seem relevant to what it is referencing. Richboy999 ( talk) 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not vitamin C that increases iron absorption, only ascorbic acid does. Otherwise please add sources describing the iron uptake with e.g. sodium ascorbate (that is also vitamin C!). Or change above sentence into "As ascorbic acid enhances iron absorption..." -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Am I right that animals produce not ascorbic acid but only sodium ascorbat in their liver? This would explain why some people have toxic effect by taking several grams of ascorbic acid: They should take sodium ascorbate instead, because only ascorbate is bioavailable. -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC) By the way the described "Tolerable Upper Intake Level" is for ascorbic acid and not sodium ascorbate. You can take about 25 grams sodium ascorbate daily without any problems. The amount of sodium ascorbate produced in a human without the genetic mutation would be 15-25 grams for an adult. -- 178.197.236.179 ( talk) 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
[1] -- megA ( talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed an entry stating that the "Mica Muro" contained 500mg/100g. The entry was added in from August 2011, by an IP that has never made any other edits, and was unsourced. The term does not exist on Wikipedia, and a search for this term elsewhere only seems to bring up lists taken from Wikipedia itself. The entry has been widely cited over the past few years. It appears to be a fake entry that has remained unspotted for 3 years. The source given for the list itself is no longer at the link provided, so the entire table may contain dubious info. Greenman ( talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It has huge amounts of C, the issue is that when cooked it loses some of it. Most of these "studies" fail to realize that. -- 193.92.17.25 ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to reorganize this article. There should be main sections about Biosynthesis and Physiology. I would also merge 2.5 Supplementation, 5 Daily requirements, and 8 Dietary sources into one section such as "Vitamin C in (human?) diet". Alternatively, 2.5 Supplementation could be combined with 7 Adverse effects as the former almost exclusively deals with medical conditions. The section on Evolution doesn't make sense as Vitamin C doesn't evolve. The only thing that does evolve are the enzymes (or their encoding genes) that are involved in Vitamin C metabolism. Peteruetz ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The E number for Vitamin C (E300) is missing. What would be a good place to put it? Under "identifiers", maybe? -- Benimation ( talk) 16:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Vitamin C. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem like Vitamin C megadosage has much content that isn't already or can't be discussed in the main article. It seems like an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Thoughts? Sizeofint ( talk) 06:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. It is not an unnecessary content fork especially as the megadosage article is already well-organized and quite large. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 13:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose . I am against merger . But strangely there are no links from either Vitamin C or Vitamin C and the common cold to the mega-dosage article. These should be in place. Lumos3 ( talk) 14:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Vitamin C. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
in the Possible Side Effects section this sentence: " ingesting specific oxidizing substances, such as very large dosages of vitamin C" seems to me both unclearly worded and in contradiction with the antioxidant property of vitamin-C (which is mentioned in the first section of the article).
178.164.137.95 ( talk) 09:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in question is no longer in the possible side effects section. In the Dietary Reference Intake text there is speculation about whether vitamin C in large amounts can act as a pro-oxidant, but the evidence was very weak. David notMD ( talk) 09:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
How do people feel about a proposal to delete the two sentences and a reference (see below) from Daily Requirements? The recommendation from the reference (1000 mg) is radically different from every government position on this vitamin. The journal in question has a low Impact Factor. David notMD ( talk) 15:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
"There is continuing debate within the scientific community over the best dose schedule (the amount and frequency of intake) of vitamin C for maintaining optimal health in humans. A 2008 review recommended 1,000 mg/day as a supplement, in addition to what is consumed from food. [1]
References
References
Vitamin C became a Good article in 2007, then delisted in 2010. Has there been enough improvement that it should be reconsidered? David notMD ( talk) 15:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Generally I put the full ref in the lead to make translation easier. Therefore returned. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Is important for both dietary and supplement use. Therefore it should go later in the article in my opinion, similar to what we do with vitamin D. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"The history of vitamin C is closely tied to seagoing voyage. After months at sea, sailors became afflicted with a disease that came to be named scurvy. Navy surgeons, among them James Lind of the British Navy, confirmed that foods such as lemons, limes, oranges and cabbage would prevent the disease. From 1928 to 1932, Albert Szent-Györgyi and others worked to isolate the antiscorbutic compound and identify its chemical structure. [1]"
A ref more recent than 1932 would be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We place a section on "biology" for substances that are both an important molecule normally within humans and are a medication.
In this situation this substance is not make within humans but is either dietary or a supplement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
IMO this should not be the first paragraph of the the article.
"The loss of biosynthesis capacity occurred multiple times in evolution, as it is lacking in humans, some primates, most fish, most bats, some birds and guinea pigs. Species unable to synthesize vitamin C get it from food. Vitamin C performs numerous physiological functions, including the synthesis of collagen, carnitine, and neurotransmitters. [2] [3] Vitamin C is found in high concentrations in cells of the immune system and is depleted quickly during infections, implying an essential role in immunity. [2] [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The Linus Pauling Institute is slightly controversial in that he promoted high dose vitamin C.
Usually we put stuff about importance in other animals lower in the article. That the ability to make the substance was lost multiple times during evolution is also not key
We already mention it is important in tissue repair in the second paragraph. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The increased dietary requirement of vitamin C in smokers should be mentioned in this article. [1] [2] Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
A DYK for Vitamin C is now in Prep: "...that in 1934 vitamin C was the first synthetic vitamin to be trademarked (as Redoxon) and marketed?" So for any further editing of the first paragraph in the Discovery section. please don't delete the text and citations that support this. David notMD ( talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Both mean the same and thus IMO the first is fine in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I also suggest we all study the definition of pilpul David notMD ( talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The Significance section is poorly written. I had intended to do a complete rewrite as part of the Good Article process, but there was a push to bring that to closure. Still my intention. I have posted the replaced version below (yes, I know I wrote I was going to post the proposed text here first, but I didn't). A reminder - as I stated when I began the GA process, I have a COI, in that I am a science consultant to companies in the dietary supplement industry (none of whom are aware that I am a Wikipedia editor). My approach here is to adhere to NPOV. David notMD ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for certain animals including humans. [1] Vitamin C describes several vitamers that have vitamin C activity in animals, including ascorbic acid and its salts, and some oxidized forms of the molecule like dehydroascorbic acid. Ascorbate and ascorbic acid – represented by the collective term, vitamin C – are both naturally present in the body when either of these is introduced into cells, since the forms interconvert according to pH. Vitamin C is a cofactor in at least eight enzymatic reactions, including several collagen synthesis reactions that, when dysfunctional, cause the most severe symptoms of scurvy. [1] [2] In animals, these reactions are especially important in wound-healing and in preventing bleeding from capillaries. [1]
The biological role of vitamin C is to act as a reducing agent, donating electrons to various enzymatic and non-enzymatic reactions. [1] The one- and two-electron oxidized forms of vitamin C, semidehydroascorbic acid and dehydroascorbic acid, respectively, can be reduced in the body by glutathione and NADPH-dependent enzymatic mechanisms. [3] [4] The presence of glutathione in cells and extracellular fluids helps maintain ascorbate in a reduced state. [5]
In humans, adequate vitamin C intake results from consumption of raw plant foods or fortified foods, providing antioxidant functions from its ability to donate electrons, and so lessen oxidative stress. [1] [6] Vitamin C is an enzyme cofactor for the biosynthesis of many biochemicals required for normal metabolism. [1] [7] It is a substrate for ascorbate peroxidase in plants. This enzyme utilizes ascorbate to neutralize toxic hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by converting it to water (H2O). [8]
Vitamin C is required for a range of essential metabolic reactions in all animals and plants. [9] Although it is made internally by almost all vertebrates, there are exceptions which do not synthesize it, including humans, [1] tarsiers, and monkeys. [10]
References
DRItext
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).UKFSA Risk
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
lpi2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vitamin C. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The redirect D-ascorbic acid, which currently targets Vitamin C, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 19#D-ascorbic acid. You are invited to contribute to that discussion as comments from those who understand the subject would be beneficial. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Moot - I answered my initial question; I'll need to find a SCIRS-quality citation before including the enzymes that are missing from
Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics anyway.
|
---|
@ Boghog: I was trying to verify the number of enzymes that vitamin C acts as a cofactor for, so I went to a random enzyme page which utilizes it as a cofactor (DA beta-hydroxylase) and checked the GO terms for ones that appeared relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the definitions for GO:0031418 ("L-ascorbic acid binding") describe activity as a cofactor and GO:0016715 (really long descriptor) describe a specific form of activity as a substrate? If the former GO term does describe a cofactor interaction, then it looks like there's 20 human enzymes or enzyme subunits for which vitamin C serves as a cofactor, not just the 8 that are listed in this article in Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics. Based upon Cofactor (biochemistry)#Vitamins and derivatives, I'd assume it acts as an electron donor at all of those enzymes/subunits, although I'm not sure how to easily verify that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Nevermind. I'm just putting this table here for cross-referencing later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gene/product identifier | Full name of gene or gene product | mentioned? |
---|---|---|
N/A - not a cofactor ( UNIPROT) | ||
DBH | Dopamine beta-hydroxylase | Y |
EGLN1 | Egl nine homolog 1 | Y |
EGLN2 | Egl nine homolog 2 | Y |
EGLN3 | Egl nine homolog 3 | Y |
OGFOD1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase OGFOD1 | |
OGFOD2 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 2 | |
OGFOD3 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 3 | |
P3H1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 1 | Y |
P3H2 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 2 | Y |
P3H3 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 3 | Y |
P4HA1 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 | Y |
P4HA2 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-2 | Y |
P4HA3 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-3 | Y |
P4HTM | Transmembrane prolyl 4-hydroxylase | Y |
PAM | Peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase | Y |
PHYH | Phytanoyl-CoA dioxygenase, peroxisomal | |
PLOD1 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 1 | Y |
PLOD2 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 | Y |
PLOD3 | Multifunctional procollagen lysine hydroxylase and glycosyltransferase LH3 | Y |
The first sentence should be write in easier to understand language:
1) "Vitamin C is a vitamin, the chemical compound ascorbic acid C6H8O6, specifically the enantiomer L-ascorbic acid."
is significantly more complicated than
2) "Vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid and L-ascorbic acid, is a vitamin found in food and used as a dietary supplement"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Also generally we organize the lead such that it follows the layout of the body of the text.
This is key "Evidence does not support use in the general population for the prevention of the common cold."
With this by itself being undue "There is, however, some evidence that regular use may shorten the length of colds."
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Per "Deficiency of vitamin C causes scurvy, which used to plague sailors in long voyages until the 18th century."
The issue in sailors belong in the article on scurvy. And it did not "plague" sailors but commonly affected them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This ref and the text with it were removed. Why? It is a relatively recent meta-analysis. Luo J, Shen L, Zheng D (August 2014). "Association between vitamin C intake and lung cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis". Scientific Reports. 4: 6161. Bibcode:2014NatSR...4E6161L. doi:10.1038/srep06161. PMC 5381428. PMID 25145261. David notMD ( talk) 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
References
I apologize for stating that Shareck was a second meta-analysis. I did a PubMed limited to meta-analyses, but the search yield still puts a few articles in a box at the top that are NOT meta-analyses. My only excuse for not catching this is - pre-coffee moment. Given an older review of prospective studies [Cho E, Hunter DJ, Spiegelman D, Albanes D, Beeson WL, van den Brandt PA, Colditz GA, Feskanich D, Folsom AR, Fraser GE, Freudenheim JL, Giovannucci E, Goldbohm RA, Graham S, Miller AB, Rohan TE, Sellers TA, Virtamo J, Willett WC, Smith-Warner SA. Intakes of vitamins A, C and E and folate and multivitamins and lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 8 prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;118(4):970-8. PubMed PMID: 16152626] did not support vitamin C reducing lung cancer risk, I will leave the article as it stands. David notMD ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Another section that should have been revised as part of the Good Article process. It has nothing about vitamin C in single-cell organisms, fungi or plants. As exists, repetitive and perhaps overlong on what happened in primates. David notMD ( talk) 14:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
How vitamin C "works" ie it "is an essential nutrient involved in the repair of tissue and the enzymatic production of certain neurotransmitters" should go lower in the lead rather than the first paragraph in my opinion.
This is its mechanism of action and is fairly complicated. I also believe people are less interested in these details than that about the common cold. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Given that both of you are eyeballing this article, I am again suggesting that sentences in the lead such as "In 2015, the wholesale cost in the developing world was less than US$0.01 per tablet.[13]" feel to me like a static, non-informative fact. Similar sentences in other vitamin articles. Cost not further discussed in body of those article. DJ and I have been on opposite sides of this debate in the past. David notMD ( talk) 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I am against cost per treatment for any vitamin or mineral. A point I want to state here even though I may not attempt to incorporate this approach into the various vitamin articles: vitamin C deficiency to the point of scurvy is historically true but extremely rare in current world conditions. Thus, undue focus on need for vitamin C as a medically prescribed product, and no need to discuss a cost per daily treatment in this article. Other vitamins - folate, vitamin A... - have clearly been identified as needed to prevent or treat commonly occurring deficiency status in individuals, with known medical consequences if not treated, so a cost per daily (or other) prevention treatment in countries where such deficiencies are a matter of public health policy would be appropriate for those articles. There are also prescription treatments for diagnosed deficiencies (injected iron, high dose vit D, etc.). Even for these, I am against cost per treatment, but will not oppose. David notMD ( talk) 13:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
One source says the legal daily level for captive apes is 5,000 mg per day (the source froze up on me and I had to restart the computer), and in the past I've read that captive apes in the U.S. had to be given the human equivalent (per weight) of 3,200 mgs per day. Does anyone know the actual legal requirements? The mg recommended doses for humans is ridiculously low, and a comparison with recommended (or legally required) doses for captive gorillas, chimpanzees, and other primates would be an interesting addition to the page (unless it is there already and I'm missing it). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Moot - I answered my initial question; I'll need to find a SCIRS-quality citation before including the enzymes that are missing from
Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics anyway.
|
---|
@ Boghog: I was trying to verify the number of enzymes that vitamin C acts as a cofactor for, so I went to a random enzyme page which utilizes it as a cofactor (DA beta-hydroxylase) and checked the GO terms for ones that appeared relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the definitions for GO:0031418 ("L-ascorbic acid binding") describe activity as a cofactor and GO:0016715 (really long descriptor) describe a specific form of activity as a substrate? If the former GO term does describe a cofactor interaction, then it looks like there's 20 human enzymes or enzyme subunits for which vitamin C serves as a cofactor, not just the 8 that are listed in this article in Vitamin C#Pharmacodynamics. Based upon Cofactor (biochemistry)#Vitamins and derivatives, I'd assume it acts as an electron donor at all of those enzymes/subunits, although I'm not sure how to easily verify that. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Nevermind. I'm just putting this table here for cross-referencing later. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gene/product identifier | Full name of gene or gene product | mentioned? |
---|---|---|
N/A - not a cofactor ( UNIPROT) | ||
DBH | Dopamine beta-hydroxylase | Y |
EGLN1 | Egl nine homolog 1 | Y |
EGLN2 | Egl nine homolog 2 | Y |
EGLN3 | Egl nine homolog 3 | Y |
OGFOD1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase OGFOD1 | |
OGFOD2 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 2 | |
OGFOD3 | 2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 3 | |
P3H1 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 1 | Y |
P3H2 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 2 | Y |
P3H3 | Prolyl 3-hydroxylase 3 | Y |
P4HA1 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 | Y |
P4HA2 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-2 | Y |
P4HA3 | Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-3 | Y |
P4HTM | Transmembrane prolyl 4-hydroxylase | Y |
PAM | Peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase | Y |
PHYH | Phytanoyl-CoA dioxygenase, peroxisomal | |
PLOD1 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 1 | Y |
PLOD2 | Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 | Y |
PLOD3 | Multifunctional procollagen lysine hydroxylase and glycosyltransferase LH3 | Y |
There is a lot of work put into this article in terms of reporting and comparing hard research. It would be nice to see a similar amount of attention paid to English style, if anyone has the inclination and time. The wording could be polished in many places. I mention it because this is turning into a good article and I would like to see more people reading it and enjoying the experience. Thanks. Alfarero ( talk) 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed text and two refs from the Cardio subsection. One [Ye Y, Li J, Yuan Z (2013). "Effect of antioxidant vitamin supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". PLOS ONE. 8 (2): e56803. PMID 23437244] was there in error, as it is a meta-analysis of combinations of antioxidant vitamins rather than solely vitamin C. Moser 2016 was removed because the quote from the abstract was misleading - the article as a whole was mixed in its assessment of vit C and cardio. Newer references should be sought. David notMD ( talk) 14:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
It states "Antioxidant vitamin supplementation has no effect on the incidence of major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, total death, and cardiac death." and specifically looked at "Antioxidant vitamin (vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C)"
I guess we could just go with this Cochrane review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28301692-vitamin-c-supplementation-for-the-primary-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease/
The problem with this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284213-vitamin-c-intake-circulating-vitamin-c-and-risk-of-stroke-a-meta-analysis-of-prospective-studies/ is it is prospective studies not RCTs. So hypothesis generating and this hypothesis does not appear to be true.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Much is made of non-primate species synthesizing more ascorbic acid than humans, and for some primates (gorilla) eating more than humans, but this article lacks a comparison of serum vitamin C across species. So far, have found mention that humans average 35-40 micromoles/L and cattle, 15 micromoles. Oddly, the article is also missing what is the normal range for humans, and a better definition of what are low and deficient serum values. David notMD ( talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I am removing the image of the goat and the caption (again). My position is that the caption - by stating that goats synthesize very large amounts of vitamin C (large in comparison to recommendations for consumption by humans), and increase synthesis when stressed, implies that humans should be consuming more vitamin C than currently recommended by government organizations, especially when stressed ('stress' not defined). The goat ref is dated 1973 and behind a paywall. David notMD ( talk) 11:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Chemistry of ascorbic acid#Wikidata items and interlanguages links. -- Mezze stagioni ( talk) 12:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This may be of interest and usable on the page, New York hospitals having good results with administering 1.5 grams of C several times a day (which sounds like normal daily usage to me, well or sick). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
PMID 26808119 (page 51) shows that as oral intake increases to 2500 mg/day, a plateau is reached around 200 mg/day. (No i.v. data in this article.) Elsewhere in the article, makes a point that the known physiological functions of vitamin C require a much lower concentration that is reached with diet intake in the RDA range. My opinion is that oral intake, regardless of amount, will not achieve the circulating and tissue concentrations that MIGHT have an effect on COVID-19. David notMD ( talk) 19:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Given that vitamin C has become part of rumor-world for COVID-19, I am going to put a short statement into the vitamin C article. David notMD ( talk) 21:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Intravenous vitamin C now has a short mention at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. Only the fact that there are ongoing clinical trials, nothing about plasma concentration or any prior published trials of intravenous vitamin C for sepsis or other serious illness. David notMD ( talk) 12:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) is part of Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance's the MATH+ protocol to treat COVID-19. See https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/FLCCC_Alliance-MATHplus_Protocol-2020-6-16.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughan1 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR182.3013, Subpart D, ascorbic acid is defined as a "chemical preservative." [6] DextroseIsCornSugar ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see mention of large dose vitamin C and its affect on those with a glucose 6 Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency also known as favism. There are instances of death as the result of large dose vitamin C IV. An individual should be aware if they are deficient before self treating with large dose vitamin C. G6PD deficiency though considered rare is not so rare in some Mediterranean countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. 65.173.109.41 ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
On 9 April 2021 a sentence was added by User:Magnovvig to the Food additives subsection: "It may be used as a flour treatment agent used in breadmaking." Two references were included. My opinion is that the second, from the Federation of Bakers, is sufficient, and that the first, a link to an article in the Independent titled "THE SHOCKING TRUTH" that is a lengthy screed against all bread ingredients not organic, containing a short mention about vitamin C being an ingredient, is not needed. I deleted the first reference. Magnovvig restored it. I hold by my opinion that the Independent ref is not needed to support the very simple factual sentence that is supported by the other reference. I would appreciate hearing from others on this dispute. David notMD ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Cleared some citations needed. One remains in first paragraph of Chemistry. David notMD ( talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a great historical anecdote about scurvy in Richard Dana's Two Years Before the Mast, i.e. /info/en/?search=Two_Years_Before_the_Mast, where the author recounts a crew member falling sick and the symptoms--poking his arms made an indentation in the flesh, which did not spring back, as it had lost its elasticity. The brig hails another ship seeking provisions, fresh potatoes and onions. The sick crew member made a mush out of the onions and rubbed it on his gums. He was up in the shrouds within a couple hours. Might be a good addition. FYI. Cheers.
I removed the picture illustrating the synthesis of Ascorbic acid in mammals for the moment. ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Vitamin_C_Biosynthesis_in_Vertebrates.svg)
As the article and the sources of that section state correctly the synthesis goes via Gulonate, not Gluconate, as the image showed. Unfortunately I do not have a correct scheme at hand at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha ScorpiiA ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I can to the page looking to find out if this is one of the water soluble vitamins or one of the fat soluble ones. I would have thought that's a fairly basic and commonly needed piece of information since it affects how you take the in and how you should consume supliments. I couldn't find the information I was looking for, instead I got bogged down and confused by much more complicated chemistry. 209.93.48.118 ( talk) 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A meta-analysis shows positive results for using vitamin C to treat exercise-induced asthma. However, if I were to interpret this study in the way some editors would prefer, the only statement this study could possibly back up is "there is no good evidence of vitamin C for treating exercise-induced asthma", given the wording in the conclusion. What statement, if any, could we add to this article based on the study? MarshallKe ( talk) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Considering User:Zefr's removal of the section from Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction that was based on this source, I am inclined to add a statement to Vitamin C stating There is insufficient clinical evidence to support vitamin C as a treatment for exercise-induced asthma. MarshallKe ( talk) 23:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Zefr removed content and refs about high dose vitamin C and cancer from the Cancer subsection, but left a small amount of referenced content there on a 2015 review which concluded no benefit. There is also mention of high dose vitamin C and cancer in the History section, which remains. The first action was presumably taken because what was removed was early evidence from treatment success, later discredited by reviews that incorporated larger and more rigorously conducted clinical trials. A PubMed search conducted on 8 May 2022, limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, did not identify any reviews on intravenous ascorbic acid as cancer treatment that were more recent than the cited Jacobs 2015. Rather than edit warring in the article, I suggest future discussions first take place here. David notMD ( talk) 11:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat weak journal literature, but topical vitamin C widely marketed as a treatment for melasma and skin aging, especially strong marketing in Japan and South Korea as a dark spot lightening agent. Topical depigmenting and anti-aging products are often referred to as a 'serum.' This usage is not an existing article, hence not present on the Serum disambiguation page. David notMD ( talk) 10:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Umm, quackery...? Just a sprinkle of research on efficacy in Covid and lowering the mortality:
This article needs some serious updating.
Can we mention the Vitamin C treatment protocol used in hospitals during the C-19 pandemic? (Also, perhaps in the "History" (Large Doses) section.) (Rather than the C-19 section.)
Drsruli (
talk) 20:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Of course, all megadosing is contentious. That's why I suggested that it (maybe) be put in the history section, similar to what was done for cancer therapy. (It's history, it happenned, it can be documented.) (I didn't mean to describe the protocol itself, but the event.) Drsruli ( talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Is Vitamin C and C-19 more contentious than Vitamin C and cancer? (In that case, then just mention it in the Other Diseases section. Along the lines of how it was included in History.) (Could also say that the C-19 use is relevant to Pauling because, coronaviruses.) [You just made me smile; "If Pauling were alive today..."] Drsruli ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
See article and below for mention that meta-analyses of clin trials for COVID treatment with vitamin C (mostly intravenous for severe cases) now incorporated as an article update. David notMD ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you ever find and add the amount of ascorbic acid required by law to be given to apes and monkeys in zoos, labs, etc.? In the 1990s this was, if I recall correctly and as we discussed previously, about the equivalent of 3,600 mgs in relationship to the average human. This is information which should be in the article, especially if you are going for feature status. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Checking for relevant meta-analyses and systematic reviews published after this became a Good Article in late 2017. David notMD ( talk) 04:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
A FA reviewer recommended consistency in reference page numbering and sentence versus title case in article titles. Addressing this is resulting in a large number of Edit summaries as ref fix (minor). David notMD ( talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)