Talk:Vitamin A

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vitamin A is not Vitamin A1[edit]

Vitamin A is term comprimising various alternative forms of vitamin A [1] like vitamin A1 present in the forms of all-trans-retinol, all-trans-retinyl-esters, retinal and various provitamin A-carotenoids, vitamin A2 present in the form of 3,4-didehydroretinol and its esters as well as / dehydroretinal and the postulated vitamin A3,4, which have no human relevance, and the novel postulated form vitamin A5[1]. In general the term vitamin A is simply used but commonly misused for vitamin A1.

Additional reviews

Vitamin A2

- Discovery and biological relevance of 3,4-didehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in small indigenous fish species and its potential as a dietary source for addressing vitamin A deficiency. La Frano MR, Cai Y, Burri BJ, Thilsted SH. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2018 May;69(3):253-261. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2017.1358358. Epub 2017 Aug 4. Review. PMID: 28776449

- Ling cod and other fish liver oils rich in vitamin A2. MORTON RA, STUBBS AL. Biochem J. 1946;40(5-6):lix. No abstract available. PMID: 20277273

- The identification of dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in human skin. Vahlquist A. Experientia. 1980 Mar 15;36(3):317-8. PMID: 7371787

- Reproduction and vision in rats maintained on a retinol-free diet containing 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2). Howell JM, Thompson JN, Pitt GA. Br J Nutr. 1967;21(2):373-6. No abstract available. PMID: 4952267

- Conversion of carotenoids to 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) in the mouse. Budowski P, Gross J. Nature. 1965 Jun 19;206(990):1254-5. No abstract available. PMID: 5879787

- Biosynthesis of 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2) from all-trans-retinol (vitamin A1) in human epidermis. Törmä H, Vahlquist A. J Invest Dermatol. 1985 Dec;85(6):498-500. PMID: 4067325

- Vitamin A in skin and serum--studies of acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis vulgaris and lichen planus. Rollman O, Vahlquist A. Br J Dermatol. 1985 Oct;113(4):405-13. PMID: 2933053

-> and many others, which should be added on the vitamin A2 page....which is just linked with dehydroretinal...I have nom idea how to make two pages out of it. -> I can help..but no idea how to do it

Secondly, vitamin A3 and A4, which have no human relevance: - ACS Chem Biol. 2016 Apr 15;11(4):1049-57. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00967. Epub 2016 Feb 2. The Biochemical Basis of Vitamin A3 Production in Arthropod Vision. Babino D1, Golczak M1, Kiser PD1, Wyss A2, Palczewski K1,3, von Lintig J1. PMID: 

   26811964

PMCID: 

   PMC4841470

DOI: 

   10.1021/acschembio.5b00967

-> It will not make a big sense to creat a page about these "vitamins" when they are not really relevent and are just mentioned one time.

Vitamin A5, - is described in a patent and as I heard as a publication submitted. I dont know if this is enough to set up a new page. I have no idea how to do it - as a references we just have this review where it s suggested

---> So, now we have to create a strategy how to explain this well in wiki.

As I said, all is well mixed up in the vitamin A page....and alone I can not start because my added work is blocked.

So, guys and experienced wiki´s tell me what "we" can do and how I can help...

Thanks you

  1. ^ a b Rühl R, Krężel W, de Lera AR (2018). "9-cis-13,14-Dihydroretinol, a new endogenous mammalian ligand of the retinoid X receptor and the active ligand of a potential new vitamin cathegory: vitamin A5". Nutr. Rev. 76 (12): 929–941. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy057. PMID 30358857.

Considering GA nomination[edit]

Beginning by reviewing all existing references and ordering sections to match order established in vitamin articles previously raised to GA David notMD (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several/many are to in vitro, animal or individual clinical trials, hence not WP:MEDRS. Will search for appropriate reviews to replace. Some of this will end up in the Research section. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The HIV vertical transmission (mother to infant) text and four refs are not being returned to the article in any form. Among the refs, a Cochrane Review (2017) reported no effect on vertical transmission. A WHO Guideline (2011) specifically did not recommend vitamin A supplementation as a means to reduce transmission. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Content and refs on male infertility removed, as all of the evidence was animal-based. No clinical trials. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Research section created for content that does not rise to standards of WP:MEDRS. I am open to a discussion about deleting all that instead. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Safety section replaced but needs more work and probably more refs. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tackling Topical next, which as it stands, is an utter mess. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made these edits as a start, although uses for acne vulgaris and psoriasis might be added, according to this review and this, Table 1. Skin irritation occurs with topical application, so would be useful to state in this section or in Safety. Zefr (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced entire Topical subsection. Needs more adverse effects content (per Zefr's comments), perhaps within Topical subsection rather then the Safety section. Need to see if non-prescription products available other than in US. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatology in Metabolic functions overlaps with Topical in Medical uses. Maybe remove the treatment content from Dermatology. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Dermatology section name to Skin. All content replaced. Some more work still needed. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Cancer subsection to Research. David notMD (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Definition section, which probably needs more work. As sections added, some duplication across the entire article may occur, which will need clean-up before submitting to GA. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Vision subsection and added Fortification subsection. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Immune function subsection. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Deficiency section David notMD (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Absorption, metabolism, excretion section.

I am done adding and revising sections. If anyone wants to add, subtract, fix, please do. I intend to submit to GA on Feb 1. David notMD (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources revision[edit]

A few comments about this edit. 1) The USDA FoodData Central database continues to be updated (October 2021) and expanded, accounting for new values for the same sources used in the table over years. The values change as more samples and similar sources are analyzed, an ongoing USDA process as the US food supply expands. 2) To check and update data, I browsed through 45 pages of the food source rankings from high to lower contents - a tedious process - as there are hundreds of old revised and new sources in the database, so it is impractical to use the database to find individual sources with the updated data. It's more practical to use the links to go to the nutrition table of individual foods, which may be updated or not. 3) The list of high and low vitamin A foods is subjective. Who still uses cod liver oil as a vitamin A source (was common 60+ years ago), or why should we list spirulina as having little vitamin A? Presenting a representative range of commonly consumed foods in high->low content for the general encyclopedia user is something we should briefly discuss here. 4) I placed a [source] notice for the sentence, "Vitamin A content in animal-sourced foods derives from retinol, while in plant-sourced foods, it derives from beta-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin which are converted to retinol in the body." 5) We should have a clarifying note beside or under the table about the RAE used as the measurement in the header. Vitamin A may be expressed in IU, ug, or RAE, so is readily a confusing presentation for the general user. Zefr (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that historic-only and exotic foods do not belong in this table. In all of the sources tables in vitamin articles, the pattern is generally high to low for commonly consumed foods, including those identified in lay literature as good sources (examples: liver, carrots, sweet potatoes...). The current list was recently shorted from ~30 to 13 entries. I would favor enlarging to 24-30 (as three columns) to be able to show that foods, even those consumed in large quantities (bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, corn) are poor sources. The use of US USDA data tables as a definitive source is problematic, especially when one looks 'behind the curtain' to learn that a value in the 2021 version is present because seven samples were analyzed 17 years ago, but there does not appear to be an alternative. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Divided to separate tables for retinol and beta-carotene. A combined table (replaced) used RAEs, but the real-time conversion of carotenoids to retinol depends on the body's retinol status.David notMD (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyright violation[edit]

The non-English blog http://www.janaushadhi.org/ has translated portions of the Vitamin A article into Malayalam and posted it to a website promoting a health business in Kerala, India. Same hyperlink has copied content from Wikipedia articles Vitamin E and Vitamin D. I know this because content I wrote for those articles appears verbatim on the blog. For a copyright check on Vitamin A, the site shows up as a very high probability copyright violation. I have asked the owner of the blog to acknowledge content was copied from Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical discussion in lede[edit]

I find the biochemical discussion in the lede paragraph beginning "Retinol is absorbed..." is too technical for general users, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #8. Zefr (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some limited editing proposed as a more general description:

Dietary retinol is absorbed from the digestive tract via passive diffusion requiring a specific receptor, SCARB1, which is induced when retinol status is low. Storage of retinol is in lipid droplets in the liver. The capacity for long-term storage of retinol means that well-nourished humans can go months on a vitamin A- and β-carotene-deficient diet, while maintaining blood levels in the normal range. Only when the liver stores are nearly depleted will signs and symptoms of deficiency show. Retinol is reversibly converted to retinal then to retinoic acid, which activates hundreds of genes.
zefr I agree (even though I penned it). All improvements welcome before the GA review process starts. And during. And after. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitamin A/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hughesdarren (talk · contribs) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Disclaimer: This is my first review, I'm not a subject expert but have a Science degree. This review is based on what I have read in Wikipedia:Good article criteria

The article is well written, but I have the following questions/suggestions:

In the lead section: Vitamin A occurs as two principal forms in foods: A) Retinols and B) Carotenoids ... the layout looks unusual, should each part start on a new line or be a bullet point?

  • In my opinion the text following A) and B) are not so lengthy that they deserves separate paragraphs, and I believe bullet points in Leads are rare. I did delete the last sentence of that paragraph, as it was not about food sources. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a discussion of the differences between Vit A and retinol

  • First sentence of Lead describes retinol as one of the several compounds making up Vitamin A. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, apologies. I think I meant more along the lines of how much retinol etc.. makes up Vitamin A. Is there some particular % of each? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are asking for information about percentages of retinol and beta-carotene (an the lesser carotenoids) in the human diet, the range is huge. Vegans will get 100% from carotenoids (and perhaps a detary supplement), whereas people on a "meat-and-potatoes" diet low in vegetables will be consuming retinol and retinyl esters. Retinoic acid is not a significant component of diet, as RA has a short half-life. David notMD (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition section: "up- or down-regulates", should this be simplified to regulates?

Absorption, metabolism and excretion section:

Could this have subsections for carnivores and humans (and maybe herbivores/omnivores - if it is different)? In the lead there is a mention of this but should it be spelled out for the layman reader?

  • Subsections in the process of being created.
    • Goodo, look forward to reading them. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I like the bit about yellow fat vs white fat. Makes perfect sense. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below actually under the Metabolic functions section:

Should Retinoic acid replace RA for this section?

  • RA established as abbreviation in first paragraph of Metabolic functions, and then text makes clear which eye functions are 11-cis-retinal mediated and which are retinoic acid.

Nightblindness subsection: Link to article on Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD)?

  • Metabolic functions section and Deficiency section both now has a link to the VAD article. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xerophthalmia and childhood blindness subsection: What does IU mean? Actually this is covered later in the unit of measurement section.

Immune function: Maybe list some of this infectious diseases that VAD compromises the resistance of?

  • I believe the Immune functions section reads better, but please review again. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diarrhea, measles and all cause mortality...."all-cause mortality" is a lovely medical term. This section is a highlight. Cheers for the work there. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal requirements section: Do non-vertebrates require Vit A?

  • Sentence and three refs added confirming that invertebrates require vitamin A (retinol and carotenoids). David notMD (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis section:

Do you think the image for Vitamin A biosynthesis from β-carotene should be larger?

Is there any other chemistry (reactions etc...) that could be included?

History section: The bit about WWII was so interesting, I was still a believer in that myth. Thanks for shattering that illusion.

tables of data - should they have a reference included in the table?

I believe I have addressed all of the above queries. Please let me know if any responses are incomplete, or if there is a second set of queries. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete. All questions answered/resolved. Thanks for your candour and prompt replies. All good to go.Hughesdarren (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Clear and mostly easy to read. Have made some suggestions above. As a layman I felt I could follow each section. Spelling and grammar good with many links to jargon that was not readily understood
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Nicely broken up into logical sections, The lead gives a good overall understanding of the topic
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. A comprehensive list of sources, correctly formatted
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sources are mostly Scientific journals and Government websites
2c. it contains no original research. Text is supported by reliable sources
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Ran through Earwig copyvio detector and all OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Definitely, and then some. The history section was a big surprise and the medical section is thorough but very readable
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). All content directly related to topic
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Alot of content added between Dec 2021 and Feb 2022, but no content disputes or edit warring. Stable edit history before and since the expansion
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images used have copyright status tagged with file
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images relevant topic with an appropriate caption
7. Overall assessment. Good to go, see discussion above.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness despite existing prevention programs? Source: Refs 17 & 20 for prevalence, 66 & 67 for programs: Whitcher et al PMID=11285665, Akhtar et al PMID=24582582, Vit A Suppl UNICEF, Wirth et al PMID=28245571

Improved to Good Article status by David notMD (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: *In the lead, we have ref 3 (Oregon State factsheet) cited in various passages, but I don't see "β-carotene 15,15'-dioxygenase", or "SCARB1", in the source. Granted, it's a very good one and definitely MEDRS-compliant, but it simply does not pinpoint to specific genes/enzymes. Copy from the main body.

    • Wrong use of ref #3 (Oregon) in lede replaced by use of existing refs Wu2016 and PKINVitA2020.
  • In Definition, where you mention an irreversible reaction, if you have an irreversible reaction (retinal -> retinoic acid), you can't have arrows to both sides. Either it is reversible, or the arrow should go one way.
    • Fixed
  • Trifarotene is a retinoid, but does not appear in ref 11. Reach to that article and cite a source from that article.
    • Ref added confirming that trifarotene is a retinoid. Same ref used in medical uses, topical.
  • Wikilink ester in lead and in the first occurrence of the text, also DNA, ethanol, euros, etiological (better subsitute with an easier word, like "causal" or something to that effect), British Ministry of Information.
    • Have done ester, DNA and Euros. Still trying to find ethanol and etiological
      • Fixed etiological (wikilink).
  • Expression of more than 500 genes are responsive to retinoic acid -> expression (subject of the sentence) is singular, so must be "is responsive".
    • Fixed
  • why is Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder all capitalised?
    • Not capitalized in the Research section; am I missing another location?
  • In 2001, the European Commission imposed total fines of 855.22 Euros on these and five other companies for their participation in eight distinct market-sharing and price-fixing cartels that dated back to 1989. That's dubious - did the European Commission actually fine three companies for what is an average salary in Central-Eastern Europe - that would be interesting as a hook if true? (i.e. isn't it supposed to be "millions"?) Besides, "euro" is not capitalised.
    • Yes, millions, Euros capitalized, and reference now provided
      • Euros are not capitalised, as no currency is; see relevant article, also wikilinked it for you (you seem to have glanced over it).
  • Per chemical convention (cis–trans isomerism), italicise all instances of cis and trans.
    • Fixed

After this is remedied, I see no obvious issues to fix in the article. The article passes the formal criteria, is reasonably sourced (spot checks revealed minor problems, but not something that disqualifies the article), is neutral, free of plagiarism as far as Earwig goes, the hook is cited and fine for a DYK. Just fix these issues as mentioned, and possibly any other issues should you notice them.

David notMD, I've helped with some issues you haven't noticed; now the only one is the lead. You aren't obliged to provide refs in lead per MOS, but when you do, please make sure that we can verify info from the source as provided in the text. After you make the decision, I'm totally fine with promoting the article, good job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided refs for the two enzymes in the lead (removed Oregon State and used two existing refs from the body of the article) David notMD (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume good faith on offline references I didn't access in my spot check; other issues were addressed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_A&oldid=1193714391"