Talk:Mannose/Archive 1

Comments

In what natural source is mannose most prevelant? Would I be able to treat accute Lupus with glyconutrients?
I need to know the melting point of mannose for organic chemistry lab. Anyone know? It would be nice if all of the sugars listed the melting points and specific rotations.

HIV Connection?

Someone added this sentence to the article, which I removed: "It has something to do with HIV". If anyone has any information about an HIV-mannose connection, it'd be great to see it in the article, but that sentence didn't add any information (and I'm not sure it's correct). Jon the Greek 18:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sources and effects

• Disclaimer: I am below ignorance on subjects related to biochemistry, but that does not necessarily have to stop me from making article suggestions. I was speaking to a nutritionist on a flight one day and learned that mannose is one of the active ingredients in aloe and that it is also found in maple syrup. I bring this up because few sources of the sugar are mentioned in the article. Also, the gentleman mentioned this sugar is important for proper function of the immune system, notably in ensuring that there is no incorrect immune response that attacks joints resulting in arthritis. A Google query for “mannose arthritis” turns up some interesting hits, as does “mannose aloe” and “mannose maple syrup”. It appears these claims are valid, so if any expert can verify them then add them to the article, I think it would be helpful. --MichaelAhlers 02:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of UTIs

Many natural health websites including [ mercola.com] & waterfall-d-mannose.com promote the use of d-mannose as a way to treat and prevent urinary tract infections. There is a lot of information in google about this and I was surprised not to see it summarized here. It seems that mannose is absorbed by the upper GI and most is not metabolized but is concentrated in the bladder. D-mannose then binds to any E.coli that has lectins (which enable them to stick to the urinary tract). After they are bound to mannose they can no longer bind to urinary tract and are washed away in the urine. The claim is that this simple sugar can cure most UTIS (90%) in 24-72 hours. Since UTIs are very common in women, as this treatment becomes more popular I think more people will come to this page to find information on the theraputic use of d-mannose. I don't feel qualified to edit the actual page, but thought I'd point this out. Mbowker 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)mbowker Mannose works real well in vitro, ie in a test tube. It doesn't relieve suffering of UTI in vivo, though. There are no published reports of it, anyway.Richard8081 (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no published research, then it should be listed as folk medicine. In any case I agree that many people are using it presumably succesfully to treat UTI and many visit the page in order to find more information about that specific use, and so it has to be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.67.28 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"presumably successfully" just doesn't make the grade; since the stuff doesn't work, it's more like "presumably [and actually] unsuccessfully" and nothing ever gets written up. Richard8081 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23633128 . This indicates that D-Mannose in a prophylactic role was roughly equivalent to Nitrofurantin 50mg on a daily basis, with slightly lower risk of side effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.231.151 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Links to other sites which may help determine the success of D-Mannose:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6346629

Effect of D-mannose and D-glucose on Escherichia coli bacteriuria in rats.

“The results indicate that D-mannose and D-glucose can significantly reduce bacteriuria within 1 day and that their efficacy is dependent upon the concentration of both saccharide and bacteria.”

Michaels EK, Chmiel JS, Plotkin BJ, Schaeffer AJ.

---

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12211/full

D-Mannose: Properties, Production, and Applications: An Overview - Benefits for human health

“D-Mannose is an essential glyconutrient for human health. As mentioned above, d-mannose is an important metabolic intermediate product in the biosynthesis of most secretory proteins and glycoproteins in the human body (Etchison and Freeze 1997). d-Mannose–specific transport systems have been identified that may function specifically to retain and utilize d-mannose. d-Mannose has been proven to have beneficial effects on the immune system (Newman 1994) and against metabolic syndrome (Pitkanen and others 1999), diabetes (Vuksan and others 1999), intestinal diseases (Ferket 2004), urinary tract infections (Altarac and Papeš 2014), and other diseases (Tizard and others 1988).”

---

<spamlink removed> - Whilst this is a company who sells DMannose, their research and more importantly independent customer reviews (Over 900) make the site worth a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.40.40 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Structure

Is the picture on the top-right not a picture of glucose? surely mannose is an acyclic compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbrak (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mannose, and other hexose sugars, exist predominantly as their cyclic pyranose form in solution.--Glycoform (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI ... The CAS# (reference the CAS Registry) is 3458-28-4, NOT 31103-86-3. There is no chemical in the CAS Registry assigned to 31103-86-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.133.25.64 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Chembox picture

The chembox picture shows D-mannopyranose. Shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa77zz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cranberry juice

I reverted the removal of the controversial section. One month is not very long, but if other editors feel it should be removed now then please do so. --Odie5533 (talk)

The tag is one month old, the bs is much older. Even the discussion page is not supporting in any manner the claims, and the claims which are then used in supporting advertisement for a website selling mannose products. Check [1] and [2] to connect everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.163.163 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the topic topic to know if it is verifiable or not, but since no sources have turned up and no one bothered putting them in the first place the section probably should have been deleted rather than tagged. I've removed the section. If anyone needs a copy of the version (for archive's sake) try here. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001321.pub5/abstract “Data included in the meta-analyses showed that, compared with placebo, water or not treatment, cranberry products did not significantly reduce the occurrence of symptomatic UTI” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.40.40 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Human metabolism

I modified, deleted, rearranged and added some material making it clear that mannose is in fact an important molecule in human metabolism and biology. The previous version claimed that "mannose" was "not a part of human metabolism", which is demonstrably false. I also added two references from the primary literature on mannose metabolism and inborn errors of metabolism associated with mannose pathways. Ericfauman (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WP:MEDRS

I'm copying here few parts from the discussion as it contains reliable sources that can be used to improve the article. It can be found at .

"PMID 18950249 is a recent review article that covers the use of mannose to treat UTIs. The full text is free online. A search on "d-mannose urinary" gave me more than a thousand hits at PubMed. Three dozen are reviews. What's the problem here? Didn't you even look before just assuming that nothing exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)"

"ummm, if you actually look at the article, d-mannose gets a column on page 237 that discusses in vitro and mouse work - no human clinical studies upon which to say whether it is safe and effective. Which is what I was saying. Your tone is not appreciated, btw.Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Yes: half of page 237 is about d-Mannose and it's summarized on page 240 in the table. We require secondary sources on the topic. The review is a secondary source, so we've met the requirement. We don't actually require human studies or regulatory approval (the meaning of "safe and effective": nothing is "safe and effective" unless and until the FDA or its equivalent says so)."

"question for you, whatamidoing. if I were working on the d-mannose article, and if i were using this article, I would write something like the following: "In vitro and animal studies have shown that bacteria treated with d-mannose do not adhere well to the cells that line the urinary tract. There have been no clinical studies in humans, and the FDA has not approved d-mannose to be marketed as a treatment for UTI." I didn't say this earlier, but I would push back against the source you brought; the journal is called "Alternative Medicine Review"; this article was written by its editor-in-chief, and she works for a company that sells supplements, etc. Pretty COI-y. And the article ends with what I see as a statement unsupportable by the evidence presented in the article, namely: "Botanicals and botanical extracts that can be particularly effective for acute use, but not intended for long-term use, include berberine and uva ursi; whereas, cranberry, mannose, probiotics, and estriol are suitable for long-term prevention." She is telling people to use mannose to prevent UTIs, saying that it is "suitable". This is exactly the kind of stuff that kills me. whatamidoing - would you really use this as a source under MEDRS, and what kind of content would you generate from this source? Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)"

"Based on secondary sources saying that d-Mannose is actually being used for UTIs, I don't have a problem with repeating this undisputed fact at Mannose, in a section called ==Medical uses== (suggested by WP:MEDMOS#Sections) or even just ==Uses==. Ideally the statement would be something like "Despite having no scientific evidence that it works in humans, d-mannose is used as a dietary supplement by some people for UTIs". (I might also consider including PMID 14631566's safety concerns about high concentrations during pregnancy.) Since we don't have evidence in humans, I'd be much less inclined to mention it at Urinary tract infection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Hooton TM (PMID 22417256) is succinct: "Table 4. Strategies for Nonantimicrobial Prevention of Recurrent Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis." Strategy:"Adhesion blockers (D-mannose, available in health-food stores and online, is occasionally used as preventive therapy)" Comments:"UTIs caused by E. coli are initiated by adhesion of the bacteria to mannosylated receptors in the uroepithelium by means of FimH adhesin located on type 1 pili; theoretically, mannosides could block adhesion; however, D-mannose has not been evaluated in clinical trials" Unless a review or better surfaces, dated since March 2012, I would use that as the basis of a statement.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)" Ryanspir (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Biotechnology

Two issues with this little section on mannose addition. (1) this is one primary study that may or may not hold. (2) The authors conclude: "The extensive glycosylation of HER-2 in Pichia Pastoris significantly increases its recognition and uptake by dendritic cells, which could be associated with increased vaccine performance". Increased vaccine performance. What is currently in our article seems to imply that this is a bad thing, but maybe I am reading it wrong. In any case,is this primary source so important that it needs inclusion here?Desoto10 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Folk medicine use is relevant information for Wikipedia users

Apparently, the following can be established from secondary sources:

1. D-mannose is actively used for UTI in folk medicine.

2. Effectiveness of D-mannose for treatment of UTI has neither been confirmed nor disconfirmed in peer-reviewed studies.

That is relevant information I would have liked to have seen in the article. That is precisely why I and many other users came to this page. Absence of that information makes this page not merely useless for such users, but a downright time-wasting distraction. Please keep your actual users in mind when you argue about arcane Wikipedia editing policies.

Richard8081 argues above to the contrary that:

  it's more like "presumably [and actually] unsuccessfully" and nothing ever gets written up. 

I view that as pure nonsense. Controlled studies demonstrating ineffectiveness of a folk remedy are useful and publishable. Many folk remedies work, while many do not. Statistic data strongly suggest that many of those that work have never been studied.

Burressd (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)