Talk:S-Methylmethionine

Not Actually Vitamin U

Garnett Cheney determined that there is a substance in fresh, raw cabbage juice that heals ulcers. He called that substance Vitamin U. If S-Methylmethionine has been proven to have no affect on ulcers, then why is S-Methylmethionine being referred to as Vitamin U in this article? If it doesn't heal ulcers, it clearly isn't the substance Cheney called Vitamin U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.66.113 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The primary problem is actually that Vitamin U redirects to S-Methylmethionine. It anything, it should redirect to Glutamine, not S-Methylmethionine. Though it really should just have its own article as it is unconfirmed which substance is Vitamin U. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.21.103 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chemical Formula

"Chemical Formula: C6H15NO2S" quoted from : http://www.reciprocalnet.org/recipnet/showsample.jsp?sampleId=27343981 -- yohans

I vote to cut the redirection, and I read consensus in doing so. .[1]. Last time I checked, a blank article is there. While fibre is a major component of Vitamin U, I believe that iso-thio-cyanates and indole-nucleated molecules are also relevant. 142.59.49.12 (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If exact nature of the substance is still unconfirmed after 50 years, 'Vitamin U' may not even merit its own page. But it definitely doesn't belong as a list of articles completely disconnected from any context in the article. I'm deleting the list until reliable sources can show a connection between this article and 'Vitamin U'.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Biochemistry

It would be a good idea to refocus this article on to the basic biochemistry of this cation (not a compound). There is extensive literature on this theme. The focus on vitamin U and Cheney G reads like an old-timey story, pioneering or not, that some might consider to be approaching fringe science. We want readers to see real biochemistry. I will continue to look for sources.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A section that claimed radical SAM enzymes generate methyl radical was completely irrelevant to this article, since it seems no radical SAM enzyme is involved in synthesizing S-methylmethionine. The radical SAM mechanism is needed when the methyl group (donated by a different S-adenosylmethionine) is destined to attack an unactivated carbon, but it is not needed for SAM-dependent methyltransferase activity onto O, S, or activated C atoms.

Proposed merge with Vitamin U

Same chemical, different names Lesion (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it iz not the same chemical with different names. This article talks about many different chemicals, and it did not talk about S-methylmethionine until a few weeks ago. Since two people seem to be confused about this, perhaps that mention of SMM should be deleted. SMM iz not I3C, DIM, glucobrassicin, raphanin, glucoraphanin, or sulphoraphane. 75.152.123.238 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Some sources suggest they are the same, [2]. However I don't have expert knowledge of the naming of chemicals, and these sources may be confused. It is often the case that the same term is used slightly differently from one source to another.

Also please read WP:MEDRS if you have not already, it is the policy for adding medical content to wikipedia. Try to avoid using primary sources on wikipedia...e.g. the source I used here is a secondary source and is ideal for use on wikipedia. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

75.152.123.238 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The policy on medrs is not to avoid using primary sources, but to back them up with secondaries (and reviews) wherever possible, especially if an argument between sources breaks out. This discussion haz already been raised on Talk:Vitamin U. I hope you hav or will read it to understand why this merjer wuz rejected last year. I realized your inexpertness in naming things when you came up with SMM, which might be Single-Molecule Magnet. Stay Gruntled.

Since read that previous merger, thanks for pointing it out though. Just because something is proposed once is no reason for it not to be proposed again fyi, but I have not reverted the removal of the merge tags since you are willing to discuss on the talk page. I feel that the NCI Thesaurus is probably the source we should be following, and also that we should try to avoid the heavy use of primary sources here. Are these primary studies cited by any secondary sources? There is specific mention in the policy of not using primary sources to overrule a secondary source, and it seems to me that that might be what has happened here. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Vitamin_U. Lesion (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You often see people using COMMONNAME for this kind of argument, however just like in medicine, the most commonly used scientific name is what we should be using, not the lay term. As with chemicals. Lesion (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

75.152.123.238 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I hav a problem with your level of comprehension of Vitamin U, in that it iz not one chemical. MMSC might well be one of them. It iz not the only one, which wuz my reason for reverting User_Talk:Boghog: He wuz copying a chembox from MMSC. That iz my second reason for not doing the merjer myself; lost content from MMSC.
Deja Coup: The feeling we overtook this government before.

I have read the article and the previous discussions on the talk pages, and I understand that there are some publications using this as a term for several chemicals, or for an unknown chemical. Please provide a reliable secondary source that supports such definitions. As it stands, we are using primary sources to over-rule the definitions given in secondary sources and this is not ideal. I am not saying that the definitions of vitamin U as a synonym of a single chemical are correct and the primary source supply a fringe definition/non mainstream/misuse of the term, but there is no proof that this is not the case with the current references. In my experience it is incredibly common for researchers to disagree with each other and use the same terms to mean different things. We are searching for the mainstream use of the term Vitamin U. This does not negate mention of other definitions of the term in the wikipedia article, but for such content we need secondary sources and they should be described with equal weight to the weight given them in the literature (see WP:CHERRY, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE). Primary sources should not be used to contradict secondary sources, especially reliable ones. Lesion (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah just found this here. Have started a clear weight in here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Weisen-U

http://www.weisen-u.com.hk/

Japanese brand of ulcer healing medicine Weisen-U seems to have this compound as its active. 213.1.22.216 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)