Talk:Selenium in biology

Reason for this article

Most element articles that end up with a bloated biology section end up having a separate health or medical article, such as Copper in health, Magnesium in biology and so on. This bio-bloat has happened to the main selenium article.

I intend to put most of the long health controversy stuff HERE, but leave a short summary behind. Much of the other bio stuff is short and can be duplicated here, with much less shortening in the main element article selenium. Basically, you can look at copper, magnesium, and the other major dietary mineral articles that interface with chemical element articles to see what I intend. SBHarris 19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Need suggestions for alternative title for subheading "Controversial health effects"

"Controversial" might not be the best word for the subheading about possible health effects. A more neutral word indicating uncertainty might be more appropriate. "Controversial" suggests antagonism and possibly "junk science," which is not necessarily the case if the purported health effects are suggested or indicated by study or theory, but not fully proven. Unless someone offers a better suggestion, I propose changing the subheading to "Possible health effects". Tetsuo (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Selenium in TB

I don't think removing the information regarding seleno-amino acid (i.e. se-methylselenocysteine) anti-mycobacterial activity and corresponding reference is appropriate.

I am first author on the antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy publication reference for this fact of in-vitro activity of a very interesting selenium pharmacophore toward mycobacteria. This is peer reviewed primary research in a prestigious international microbiology journal. I have a PhD in the subject of anti-mycobacterial drug development, therefore I believe the inclusion of this mention of activity is relevant and disagree that it is poorly sourced.

Additionally, whilst literature evidence including several large clinical trials is collectively inconclusive regarding selenium supplementation effects toward active TB outcomes, citing an article that claims no effect does not overrule the other articles that demonstrate statistically significant improved outcomes. Although I did not author that particular section, as an expert in the field I suggest both sides should be mentioned. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly against unsubstantiated crackpot supplement science but there is sufficient evidence for selenium supplementation influencing TB outcomes (particularly HIV-TB coinfection) to warrant mention, even if the only effect is alleviation of a selenium insufficiency that commonly occurs in active infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.209.69 (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What secondary sources do you have in mind that we could be using? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No reviews or meta-analysis regarding seleno-amino acid antimycobacterial activity im afraid, but further primary research publications:

Amso, Z., Miller, C., O'Toole R, & Sarojini, V. (2012). Design, synthesis and analysis of anti-tuberculosis peptides. JOURNAL OF PEPTIDE SCIENCE, 18, S33-S33. http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/Seleno_amino_Acids_a_Novel_Class_of_Anti.html?id=xyD8nQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y although I am not sure if a thesis is an acceptable reference. It just feels wrong.

Regarding selenium supplementation and TB:

Shor-Posner, G. et al. Impact of selenium status on the pathogenesis of mycobacterial disease in HIV-1-infected drug users during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 29, 169-73 (2002).

Kassu, A. et al. Alterations in serum levels of trace elements in tuberculosis and HIV infections. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60, 580-586 (2006).

Seyedrezazadeh, Ensiyeh, et al. "Vitamin E-selenium supplement and clinical responses of active pulmonary tuberculosis." Tanaffos (2006).

Seyedrezazadeh, Ensiyeh, et al. "Effect of vitamin E and selenium supplementation on oxidative stress status in pulmonary tuberculosis patients." Respirology 13.2 (2008): 294-298.

Shall I take another crack at this section based on the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.209.69 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't use primary sources, especially for biomedical content, and extra-especially when they "complicate" the view as expressed in a strong secondary; in this case a Cochrane review, about the strongest source there can be, gives us the accepted knowledge on this topic as it stands. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a research bulletin. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From your edit, have you read the Cochrane review? even the abstract? if you did then you are either out of your field of expertise or are deliberately misconstruing information. The same applies for selenium and cancer that I see you also edited. Inconclusive meta analysis does not equal no evidence, and in my opinion if peer reviewed strong in-vitro or other preclinical data exists then it deserves mention for what it is where relevant.

Its not a research bulletin but this certainly falls under selenium in biology and is relevant to health and tuberculosis. The information might be useful to someone so why not disseminate a simple sentence of information. I suspect you have a personal bias here and I note you have a history of this kind of unreasonable one sided editing behaviour. Disappointing, lets have this mediated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.209.69 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone here is an author or colleague of an author, they probably should not add content. If they feel compelled to comment, do so on this Talk page AFTER registering. Otherwise the edits represent a serious conflict of interest. Dont know why I even need to say this. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From the authors' conclusion of the Cochrane review: "There is currently no reliable evidence that routinely supplementing at or above recommended daily amounts has clinical benefits." No more need be said (granted we could qualify our "no evidence" as "no good evidence"). Our biomedical sourcing guidelines tell us how we should be choosing and using sources here. If there are better sources than Cochrane, then this can be revisited. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intake

Added section to article on Dietary Reference Intakes (EAR, RDA and UL) for selenium, also mention that European Food Safety Authority set its UL lower than the US, and that the 100% Daily Value for labeling purposes is being decreased from 70 to 55 micrograms, effective 2018. Most 100% DVs now align with the highest RDA (not counting pregnancy or lactation).

Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations.David notMD (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)