Talk:Erythropoietin

Recursion

As a class of drug EPO is an Erythropoietin Stimulating Agent (ESA).

Does anybody else see a problem with this statement? lol Leondegrance (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

could

could increased haemoglobin (as a result of lung disease i.e increased producfion of 'erythropoietin' by bone marrow, be a cause of high blood pressure?.

No.GiollaUidir 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed no, but the hematocrit gets higher and hyperviscosity may develop in extreme cases (rare). JFW | T@lk 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Article in french newspaper announced that Lance armstrong might have used EPO. Keep an eye on this?

---

Recent big article is showing that Erythropoietin could have big role in protecting neurons in CNS:

http://www.clinsci.org/cs/103/0275/cs1030275.htm

---

Note NYT obituary of Dr. Margot Kruskall, who was one of the early researchers of EPO in the 1980s, and helped to develop the blood test for it. Possibly some of this material could be used (but of course not copied) in the article. --Blainster 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Medical books (e.g. Junqueira's Functional Histology) and dictionaries ([1]) spell it 'poe', not 'poie'. I changed the title to match this spelling. MrTroy 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No they don't, at least the ones that are correct do not. I have the Merck manual, Pharmacology (by Rang + Dale), Medical Physiology, even two books on immunology (Janeway and Roitt's) here that all say 'poie'. Not to mention an embarassing defeat on googlefight and, if you care to test, pubmed also. I think I'll change it back to erythropoietin. |→ Spaully°τ 15:13, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully, "poie" seems to be the most commonly used variation.GiollaUidir 15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say the books I own are not "correct". I have books by Junqueira, Robbins, Alberts, the official Farmacotherapeutical Manual of 2005, and a Medical Dictionary which all spell 'poe'. Indeed "Medical Physiology" which you mentioned spells it 'poie'. In fact that's the first book I ever read that spells it that way, I was rather surprised reading that variation. I'm even more surprised hearing that you can name more books spelling 'poie'. Google is an awful source for spelling, by the way, it only reflects how the masses spell a word, not what's the correct spelling.

@GiollaUidir: the most common used variation deosn't have to be the good one.

I'll leave it 'erythropoietin' for now, I'll only change it back to 'poe' if I manage to gather evidence that that is the correct spelling. Please note I'm not trying to force this spelling on you, I'm just trying to get medical terms correctly spelled within Wikipedia. MrTroy 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The favor of poie over poe is even larger on scholar.google.com, so if it is an error, is is an error more common in the scientific community than among the masses.--Per Abrahamsen 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think you can hardly call one of the two erroneous. They're both used to such an extent that they're both correct. But the question is which originally was the right one. MrTroy 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'poie' I believe is the original as suggested by the increased use of this in other words (haematopoietic, thrombopoietin). Also from the greek 'poiesis' meaning 'making', which fits in with the purpose of the hormone.

I agree on google, and usually would never bring it up but in this case the difference is very large. Pubmed queries are closer than my previous post might suggest - 'poie' = 18161, 'poe' = 14972; but if you look at the titles of the 'poe' result they either contain 'erythropoietin' or 'epoetin', seemingly a shortening. I am not accusing you of bad faith, if my previous post seemed a little short it was because of all the pages you had changed.

I sould also note that the dictionary you link to also has an entry for the 'erythropoietin', where many dictionaries contain no entry for the 'poe' version. At least for now, and the forseeable future, I think we should stick with the 'poie' version, until this version pervades the medical system. |→ Spaully°τ 18:15, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

...or until someone proves that another spelling is 'the correct one'. But I agree on not changing it for the time being. MrTroy 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the confusion may arise from the fact that erythropoietin is correctly spelt with an i, whereas epoetin is spelt without. But, to settle the dispute, since a few of my textbooks also say erythropoetin, should it be put as an alternative spelling at the top? Yes, it should, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.4.112 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting etymology fact: -poietin comes from the greek word poietes which means 'maker' ("erythrocyte maker"). HrEkstedt (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation

I'm really not sure about the pronunciation given here - although it may be the US form. I'm adding a British version. Wee Jimmy (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The pronunciation as I added was exactly according to Wikipedia's style guide. The current revision isn't. Your statement that it's "more common IPA representation style" may be correct, but let's follow Wikipedia's style guide, OK? MrTroy 11:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Veterinary use

I'm not Italic textevenItalic text qualified to edit this page, however I think somebody more qualified might want to mention that erythropoietin is also used (semi-experimentally) in domestic animals.

Basesurge 06:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

could increased haemoglobin (as a result of lung disease i.e increased production of 'erythropoietin' by bone marrow, be a cause of high blood pressure?.

No.GiollaUidir 11:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed no, but the hematocrit gets higher and hyperviscosity may develop in extreme cases (rare). JFW | T@lk 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Article in french newspaper announced that Lance Armstrong might have used EPO. Keep an eye on this?

---

Recent big article is showing that Erythropoietin could have big role in protecting neurons in CNS:

http://www.clinsci.org/cs/103/0275/cs1030275.htm

---

Note NYT obituary of Dr. Margot Kruskall, who was one of the early researchers of EPO in the 1980s, and helped to develop the blood test for it. Possibly some of this material could be used (but of course not copied) in the article. --Blaster 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Medical books (e.g. Junqueira Functional Histology) and dictionaries ([2]) spell it 'Poe', not 'poie'. I changed the title to match this spelling. MrTroy 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No they don't, at least the ones that are correct do not. I have the Merck manual, Pharmacology (by Rang + Dale), Medical Physiology, even two books on immunology (Janeway and Roitt's) here that all say 'poie'. Not to mention an embarrassing defeat on googlefight and, if you care to test, pubmed also. I think I'll change it back to erythropoietin. |→ Pauly°τ 15:13, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully, "poie" seems to be the most commonly used variation.GiollaUidir 15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say the books I own are not "correct". I have books by Junqueira, Robbins, Alberts, the official Pharmacotherapeutical Manual of 2005, and a Medical Dictionary which all spell 'Poe'. Indeed "Medical Physiology" which you mentioned spells it 'poie'. In fact that's the first book I ever read that spells it that way, I was rather surprised reading that variation. I'm even more surprised hearing that you can name more books spelling 'poie'. Google is an awful source for spelling, by the way, it only reflects how the masses spell a word, not what's the correct spelling.

@GiollaUidir: the most common used variation doesnt have to be the good one.

I'll leave it 'erythropoietin' for now, I'll only change it back to 'Poe' if I manage to gather evidence that that is the correct spelling. Please note I'm not trying to force this spelling on you, I'm just trying to get medical terms correctly spelled within Wikipedia. MrTroy 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The favor of poie over Poe is even larger on scholar.google.com, so if it is an error, is is an error more common in the scientific community than among the masses.--Per Abrahamsen 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think you can hardly call one of the two erroneous. They're both used to such an extent that they're both correct. But the question is which originally was the right one. MrTroy 18:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'poie' I believe is the original as suggested by the increased use of this in other words (hematopoietic, thrombopoietin). Also from the Greek 'poiesis' meaning 'making', which fits in with the purpose of the hormone.

I agree on Google, and usually would never bring it up but in this case the difference is very large. Pubmed queries are closer than my previous post might suggest - 'poie' = 18161, 'Poe' = 14972; but if you look at the titles of the 'Poe' result they either contain 'erythropoietin' or 'epoetin', seemingly a shortening. I am not accusing you of bad faith, if my previous post seemed a little short it was because of all the pages you had changed.

I could also note that the dictionary you link to also has an entry for the 'erythropoietin', where many dictionaries contain no entry for the 'Poe' version. At least for now, and the foreseeable future, I think we should stick with the 'poie' version, until this version pervades the medical system. |→ Spaully°τ 18:15, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

...or until someone proves that another spelling is 'the correct one'. But I agree on not changing it for the time being. MrTroy 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation as I added was exactly according to Wikipedia style guide. The current revision isn't. Your statement that it's "more common IPA representation style" may be correct, but let's follow Wikipedia style guide, OK? MrTroy 11:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There should also be a pronunciation for people in the United States. I'm a freaking novelist and I can't make heads or tails out of that silly pronunciation method, even after reading the so-called explanation. That "International Phonetic Alphabet" isn't really used or widely known in the United States. Especially since this is the first I've ever seen or heard of it, I'd say there should be another entry for American English speakers. As it stands, I have no clue how to pronounce this word.

--12.201.55.10 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Brandon Harwell

Veterinary Use

I'm not Italic textevenItalic text qualified to edit this page, however I think somebody more qualified might want to mention that erythropoietin is also used (semi-experimentally) in domestic animals.

Basesurge 06:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Adverse Affect

13.0 g/ml seems to low a number here. I don't have full text access to the article, but the abstract would seem to indicate normal is 13.0 - 15.0 g/dl. Anyone care to expand or correct?

Ganesha 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

EPO is a reasonably safe way to increase hgb from "very low" to the bottom end of the normal range. Trying to reach the middle of the normal range is unsafe. The goal should normally be somewhere between 10 and 12 g/dL. (Remember that you're just trying to avoid a need for a blood transfusion with this. It doesn't really "make you feel better" or "give you more energy.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

time to take effect

How long does a change in altitude take to cause EPO to restore oxygen availability?

You may also wish to try Wikipedia's Reference desk for questions such as this. Best wishes. Marycontrary 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Erythropoietin and blood doping

I am not scientifically qualified to make edits on this page, but I am knowledgeable enough to know that EPO and recombinant EPO are not the same. The main EPO page discusses blood doping as if the natural hormone EPO is what's being abused, when in reality, it is the artificial hormone found in drugs such as epogen. I think people use the term "EPO" too generically and confuse naturally occuring EPO with the rEPO drugs which are widely abused by endurance athletes. The page should refer people interested in the topic of blood doping to a page on recombinant EPO.

I think the second paragraph of the article identifies the difference and the proper nomenclature: ESA.BillpSea (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the second paragraph does not make a distinction. It actually encourages the confusion with the following statement: "This substance was finally purified and confirmed as erythropoietin, opening doors to therapeutic uses for Epo in diseases like anemia." Because it does not discuss the development of recombinant EPO versus naturally occuring EPO. This shortcoming of the article helps propogate the misconception that "EPO" is a drug. Recombinant EPO is a drug, but EPO itself is a naturally occuring hormone.

I think the article is very poorly written, and uses nomenclature in a very simplistic way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.11.6 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

billiards

An EPO masking agent was detected in a billiards player. The article conveys this fact as if it is popular to use EPO to enhance billiards play. [3] MM962 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The original link is dead so I would suggest using archive.org. A "jokes and fails" section should be instituted for reporting news like this. I hope they also strictly test chess players. Money wisely spent.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080607111344/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/17/sports/EU-SPT-Doping-Billiards.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstard12 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Genetic Engineering

The article didn't really go into the process of how EPO is made and used in the lab. I'm trying to find some sites, but nothing seems to be coming up. 99.230.7.159 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Location of production

First paragraph: "...it is produced by the peritubular capillary endothelial cells in the kidney..." Several USMLE review books that I've seen say this same thing, but it looks like they're actually produced by fibroblasts in the cortical interstitium. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9402140 and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18575881 Can anyone find evidence to dispute this? Sirmky (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• you are correct, I have modified/corrected this. Please see comprehensive clinical nephrology 4th ed, p951. Kitkat21 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move portions of this article to Epoetin alfa

This article currently is very confusing because it mixes information about the endogenously produced erythropoietin hormone and recombinantly manufactured erythropoetin that is administered as a drug. Hence I propose that this article focus on the erythropoietin gene/protein and the drug specific parts be move to Epoetin alfa (analogous to the insulin and insulin therapy articles). Furthermore this article should conform to WP:MCBMOS while the drug specific article should conform to WP:PHARMMOS. Boghog (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Since no one has objected to the above suggestion, I have gone ahead and moved thhe drug specific material from Erythropoietin to Epoetin alfa and reorganized both articles a bit. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong afficiandos creating biased POV

"The report contained affidavits from numerous riders on the team including Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, and several others describing wide spread EPO use during the Tour de France and other bicycling races around the turn of the century. They also implicated Lance Armstrong."

USADAs report is not focused on widespread EPO use in the peleton. Its primary focus is this: that Lance Armstrong: (i) cheated, and (ii) the necessary corollary: that Lance Armstrong is a liar. They did not "implicate" Armstrong. USADA and USADAs witnesses, who have testified on pain of perjury state openly and clearly that Armstrong is a drug cheat. No "implication". No innuendo. it's not as if his name was mentioned in passing and he was 'implicated' in the event, but he's clearly innocent. no no no. Given the evidence and Armstrong's lack of testimony, he has effectively entered a guilty plea as far as USADA and the UCI are concerned.

It is patently obvious that Armstrong's PR machine (guys you can't win the editing war - you are paid whereas wiki users are not. we'll be here forever reverting the changes) or the few supporters he has are making these pro-armstrong edits despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. nearly the whole US Postal and Discovery channel have admitted to using performance enhancing substances - lance armstrong is the only one, according to his story, who is clean.

guys, USADA is very clear on this point: Armstrong is a cheat. Fact. Period.

Captainandrewwiggins (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Captainandrewwiggins (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent evidence

...suggests that EPO may not work as a performance-enhancing drug: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/w-edi120412.php

Probably worth mentioning on this page? ed g2s • talk 17:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me not much doubt that it increases hematocrit, and that is performance enhancing in endurance sports that depend on getting oxygen to muscles. Might be much less useful for other sports. Gah4 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Structure and Chemistry Lacking

There really needs to be actual chemical structure or name, including the specific amino acid sequence, the genes involved, and the types/locations of glycoslyations (the terms alfa, beta, etc. are virtually meaningless, with no explanations given even on their respective pages). The synthesis and regulation section only talks about regulation, not the actual synthesis or process for different glycosylations. The PDB structure is colorized but does not indicate the various atoms or even which parts are protein and which are glycans. Lakshwadeep (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement When exogenous EPO is used as a performance-enhancing drug,[dubious – discuss] it is classified as an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA). needs clarification.

By search, I find that :

• its referenced here.
• the statement is a copyvio!

Request some-one who knows more on this issue to:

• clarify the contaxt.
• paraprase & remove the copyvio.

@FeatherPluma: may please see!

AshLin (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO cleaned and several clarification edits made. Thanks for the prod. Regards.

@AshLin:

FeatherPluma (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AshLin (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge Dynepo in

There seem to have been no objections to merge a page for an EPO brand (Dynepo) into this generic page since it was proposed in June 2014. It seems like a good idea to me, as there is little specific on that page.Klbrain (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Beginning of EPO use in cycling

The article currently states

'Synthetic EPO is believed to have come into use in cycling about 1990'

In the book 'Het laatste geel', former professional Mathieu Hermans admits to using EPO during the 1989 Tour de France. He adds that he did nothing illegal, as it was not yet on the banned substances list yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.11.246 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erythropoietin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121016045710/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/programmes/b01ngqxd to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd+

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This link "Safety Labeling Changes: Epogen/Procrit (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa)" goes to a 404 now. Juliansteinb (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Stuff moved to Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent

Not everyone is going to like my attempt to detach the physiological role of erythropoietin and its pharmacological use, but I think it is needed. The content about pharmacological use and misuse is now on Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (taken from this version). Happy to be shot down, but I think it is helpful. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sections

User:IiKkEe this article should follow WP:MCBMOS in its structure. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk) If I have inadvertently done something wrong, please fix it with an edit. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk) I have reviewed my edits: I have not changed the structure of this Article - all my edits were within Sections. I plead "not guilty". Are you seeing something that I am missing? Regards IiKkEe (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

LINK to Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusions

I fail to see any need for this unrelated LINK to Jehovah's Witness and Blood Transfusions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.161.59 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)