![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could yous not use ONLINE STORES as REFERENCE ?
I added the cleanup tag because this page needs a rewrite, and I don't have the requisite knowledge. For instance, the second paragraph is one line, and the third paragraph is unclear in the "several thousand . . . " line. The article vascillates between using EGCg and EGCG to refer to a particular compound. (I don't know which is correct, of if they're interchangeable.) The conclusion discusses what would appear to be antimicrobial properties of catechin. The sole reference for this article also discusses these properties, but provides no reference of its own. Indeed, most of this article appears to have been directly plagiarized from the source. This is inexcusable.
update by my ip in the edit history 5/14/06 reference from a online store! is not a valid reference. so i removed, and replaced with a valid ref. link. and added some text, but someone should find reference for those magical antioxidant properties, im tired right now, and disecting this topic has been very time consuming.
this is a biochemistry subject, please treat it as such.
Forgive my ignorance if this is wrong, but it looks like in PubChem and other sources that (+)-catechin and (--)-epicatechin should have the two hydroxyls in the B ring attached to 3' and 4' carbons, not 4' and 5' as it is currently depicted in the (+)-catechin article. Can any chemists out there confirm and fix the structure? Or let me know and I could fix and paste a corrected structure. Or explain why I'm wrong, would love to know. Eric Yarnell (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is poorly organized, and does not provide an adequate description of what a catechin is, or what the current scientific\medical opinion about it's effects is. It is almost entirely lacking in citations, and only one of these appears to be a sufficiently rigorous source. I attempted to find some more reliable information, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to write a better article. 70.162.14.102 05:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
i havent been involved in creating this article or developing its text, but i have started to try to add citations and rewrite as needed. much of the material seems valid, but sourcing will take some time. cheers Covalent 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Dictionary.com: Catechin; A crystalline substance, C15H14O6, derived from catechu and used in tanning and dyeing. Also called catechol."
Catechol: A biologically important organic phenol, having two hydroxyl groups attached to the benzene ring.
Phenol: A caustic, poisonous, white crystalline compound, C6H5OH, derived from benzene and used in resins, plastics, and pharmaceuticals and in dilute form as a disinfectant and antiseptic. Also called carbolic acid. Any of a class of aromatic organic compounds having at least one hydroxyl group attached directly to the benzene ring."
I think this supports the theory that catechins have antimicrobial properties. At least we know it's not a protein, and rather a crystalline substance. But a phenol can also be an "aromatic organic compound." I'm sorry, I don't have much knowledge of the subject as a whole, but is there any way to tell which type of phenol the catechins from Green/White tea are?
I think the retention time under Spectral Data/UV-Vis should be removed. As an analytical chemist I know that retention time varies tremendously under different instrument conditions, even different instruments. This data is too narrow, not useful, and misleading.
The article mentions bacteria as being a type of protein. I'm not an expert but this does not seem right. Bacteria are living entities. Proteins, as such, are not living. --CalumetK.
I have no expertise in this area and don't want to mess with the article, but I found catechin as an herbicide produced (in two isomers) by spotted knapweed. It was touted as a candidate for commercial application, but I have found no products. Fairandbalanced 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the first question that occurred to me when reading this article is why is it called "catechin". So I looked it up in the dictionary and found that it is related to the Catechu plant and other substances derived from it, such as pyrocatechol. I think it would be interesting to relate these to catechin, even though tea is more popular.
Catechin is the proper name for this class of compounds. That said if it relates then it would be nice to see. Jasoninkid 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the editor mentioning there is insufficient data to provide an adequate description of what exactly a catechin is.
"Catechins belong to the flavan-3-ol class of flavonoids and these are found in green tea leaves. . There are 4 major catechins in green tea leaves, namely (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), (-)-epicatechin gallate (ECG), (-)-epigallocatechin (EGC) and (-)-epicatechin (EC), all polyphenolic compounds."
Polyphenolic compounds are "any of a large group of plant substances that include the anthocyanins."
Anthocyanins are the various water-soluble pigments that are found in flowers and other plants, ranging from violet, blue, to many shades of red.
There you have it... a catechin is the pigmentation created by the plant, I believe during photosynthesis.... Though why it would be a different pigment than green, perhaps the biosynthesis process, I don't know. I'll edit if I think up of anything else.
I'm fairly sure, as someone else mentioned, that catechins are not proteins. I believe this because simple biology tells us that chlorophyll is a pigment, yet it is not a protein. I believe these catechins are a different kind of pigment, created by the plants, to either hue a certain flower petal, or leaf, to aid in either reproduction or as a self-defense mechanism. (Camouflage)
Sorry, I dont have a MD in biochemistry, but I believe my info is up-to-date :)
The role of a catechin is not known, polyphenolic compounds are compounds that have 2 or more phenol groups (an OH on a benzing ring. Anthocyanins are similar to but not the same as catechins. You are right that it is not a protein, at the most basic level proteins are made of amino acids and catichins are not, it is best described as a small molecule.
Also would people pleases sine their posts! Jasoninkid 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My sister learned in school that catechins in tea decay/deteriorate after 24-48 hours. Can anyone confirm this?
Yes they do and in much less time. Jasoninkid 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This Article reads: "Heating catechin past its point of decomposition releases pyrocatechol, which explains the common origin of the names of these compounds."
What is the temperature of decomposition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.200.162 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
My experience has suggest that they will discompose at any temp if in solution with the rate being personal to temp. Jasoninkid 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Catechin only present in chocolate or also in low fat cocoa? --91.15.72.16 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Catechin is found as a flavanoid in Cocoa (the darker the chocolate, the higher the concentration), Pomegranate, Green tea, Red wine, and lemon peels (oils).
Generally it's flavor is bitter, and is in a lot of products containing flavanoids. 174.140.111.29 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ProDigit
I'm not sure what the norm is for articles with titles of scientific origin, but would it be possible to include an IPA pronunciation (or, more likely, a couple of common pronunciations) of "catechin" at the beginning of the article? ----72.207.255.52 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Infobox - LD50: oral? Chemistry - catechin numbered: most of the numbers are missing. It would be better to say it has 4 stereoisomers. "activating the double bond on ring C"? What double bond? Biosynthesis : The shikimate pathway is not involved in converting phenylalanine to hydroxycinnamoyl CoA. The step from hydroxycinnamic acid to hydroxycinnamoyl CoA is not mentioned. Wouldn't E5 be dihydroflavaNOnol 4-reductase? Interactions with human genes - CYP1A1: implied should be implicated. S100B: It isn't an enzyme. This states twice that catechin decreases expression. "oxidative stress, are in agreement": "are" should be deleted. Candidate therapeutic protective for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders: "and caused by" - delete "and". Suppression heat-induced pain: Suppression of. Ecological effects: should be a ; after behavior. Ref. 5 & 26 are missing a space. Ref. 31: The P of P450 is always upper case. Ref. 52 appears to be truncated. 69.72.92.28 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the article in question: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265593/
The portion dealing with catechin is in regard to compounds 12-15 (the four isomers of catechin) and their collective activities as opiate receptor antagonists. The exception is (-)-catechin (compound 13) which had "weak partial agonist activity (Emax = 18% of U69,593)." U69,593 is according to it's own wiki article "a potent and selective" kappa 1 receptor agonist.
I'm having problems editing this on my tablet (keeps crashing Firefox). I will try and revisit this, however if someone else feels like adding the info feel free.
In my opinion the information is relevant here under the bioactivity studies sub heading with it's own sub heading "Interactions with human opiate receptors in vitro". This way it matches the previous sub heading "Interactions with human genes in vitro". Does anyone agree/disagree with this?
Any reasons for or against including this information in the article? I know that my save earlier was incomplete and had issues. I was trying to change modes to fix it, and it was deleted in the interim. Apologies for that.
Thanks and cheers! Dogtoy (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to admit I am a bit confused by the latest edit by Zefr - the Linus Pauling reference [1] doesn't include the details shown in the text (the details on individual metabolites - for methodological reasons, this is mainly from [2] which is so far the only ADME study that used radio-labelled compounds. I appreciate that primary sources are not welcome, but the reference for metabolism in the jejunum [3] is also primary research (and based on an organ model).
I'm also a bit surprised by the following statement: "As of 2016, clinical research has been insufficient to prove any specific biological effects of catechins in humans.[28]" there are several studies showing an acute effect of (-)-epicatechin, and this is shown in at least 2 meta-analyses by Hooper [4] and Ellinger [5]. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration?
I fully agree with the comment above and I also do not understand edits by Zefr. Regarding the above statement: "As of 2016, clinical research has been insufficient to prove any specific biological effects of catechins in humans.[28]" this is not just outdated based on the 2 meta-analyses mentioned above, but the current use ref 28, which references the Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2016, is out of date in that the reference materials have been updated. The Linus Pauling Institute currently states on their web-based information that: "Accumulating evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that consumption of flavan-3-ols and anthocyanidins can be beneficial for metabolic and cardiovascular health.", a fact that contradicts the current use of this reference in the current version of this text as the term flavan-3-ol is just another term for catechins PolyphenolNet (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
I'm happy to contribute more, but I don't want to write some paragraphs which then disappear quickly.
[1] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/dietary-factors/phytochemicals/flavonoids [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929566/ [3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X0093701X [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22301923 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22552030 Ggux (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ggux (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This last statement by Zefr is incomplete, i.e. the general breath of its validity is unjustified, as it does not consider "Scientific Opinion on the modification of the authorisation of a health claim related to cocoa flavanols and maintenance of normal endothelium-dependent vasodilation pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 following a request in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006" EFSA Journal: EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3654 [13 pp.. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3654" PolyphenolNet (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
I moved the section below from the article because it is WP:PRIMARY in vitro research alluding to a possibility for in vivo effect. As we are writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, this type of highly preliminary detail does not add substance to the article, but rather is a tangential highly speculative discussion far from proof of human relevance, and so is WP:UNDUE. We can discuss it here. --Zefr (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Removed text follows - In vitro, catechin interacts the most with the PTGS2, IL1B, CAT, CYP1A1, SOD, BAX, CASP3, MAPK1, MAPK3 and S100B human genes.catechin on Comparative Toxicogenomics Database
Experiments on human Caco-2 cells show changes in the expression of genes like STAT1, MAPKK1, MRP1 and FTH1 genes, which are involved in the cellular response to oxidative stress, are in agreement with the antioxidant properties of catechin. In addition, the changes in the expression of genes like C/EBPG, topoisomerase 1, MLF2 and XRCC1 suggest novel mechanisms of action at the molecular level.[1]
Detail for all tested genes :
(dec : decreased expression, inc : increased expression, = : does not affect the activity, expression assayed in human if not specified otherwise)Catechin interactions with genes
ABCG2 : (-)-catechin decreases the expression of ABCG2
ACE (in Rattus norvegicus) : (+)-catechin or (-)-epicatechin do not affect the activity of the angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACTB (in Rattus norvegicus) decrease
AKT1 decrease
ANXA2 increase
ARHGAP4 decrease
ATF4 increase
BAT2 increase
BAX (rattus norvegicus) increase
BCL2 decrease
BRCC3 decrease
BTG1 increase
CASP3 increase
CAT (mus musculus) decrease
CCL2 increase
CCND1 decrease
CD81 increase
CD9 increase
CEBPG increase
CXCL10 increase
CYP19A1 (rattus norvegicus) increase
CYP1A1 decrease
CYP1A2 =
DEK decrease
DFFA (mus musculus) decrease
DNMT1 decrease
EWSR1 increase
FLT3LG decrease
FTH1 increase
GRN increase
HCFC1 increase
HEAB decrease
HMOX1 increase
HOXD3 increase
HSPD1 decrease
ICAM1 increase
IL10 increase
IL1B increase
IL2RA decrease
IL32 decrease
IRF4 decrease
ITGAL increase
ITGB2 increase
LYN decrease
MAP2K1 decrease ?
MAPK1 increase ?
MAPK3 increase ?
MIF decrease
NCF1 ?
NFE2L2 increase
NFKBIA decrease
NOS2 (mus musculus) increase
NOTCH1 increase
NPM1 decrease
PARP1 (mus musculus) increase
PECAM1 increase
PLAT increase
PLAU increase
PON1 =
PTGS2 increase?
RAC1 decrease
RARB decrease
RELA decrease
RPL6 increase
S100B decrease
SERPINE1 decrease
SF1 decrease
SLC20A1 increase
SOD (Drosophila melanogaster) increase
SOD2 (Drosophila melanogaster) increase
STAT1 decrease
STAT5B increase
STAT6 increase
SULT1A1 increase : sulfation of catechin
TCF7 increase
TK1 decrease
TNF increase
TNFRSF8 decrease
TOP1 decrease
TOP2A decrease
TRP53 increase
XCR1 decrease
ZNF593 increase
Zefr - I disagree with the removal of the history section. The sources are readily available in any library, and as far as I understand, Wikipedia does not require English language sources. In my opinion, it is very relevant that catechin-containing preparations have been used for a considerable amount of time and that research into the purported beneficial effect are nothing new (e.g. the claim that they might be even Vitamins). The use as drug 'catergen' is also relevant - after all, "catergen" was a licensed drug at least in Switzerland and Germany, and the side effects included fatalities. This information might be appropriate in a different section - but as the drugs are not currently in use (they are available as slimming drugs though), I think it is best suited for the "history" section. Ggux (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The section below is neither mainstream for history nor for medicinal use; WP:UNDUE. Stronger references are needed if this is to be included. Also, a search within the source for "catechin" produced no content, so the information is not WP:V. The page cited, 371, was not viewable. If available by another source, a quote should be provided, but that may not be sufficient to prove that this history is significant as a foundation of current uses for catechins.
Lastly, the paragraph was poorly written with punctuation and spelling errors. Since this has been a problem with your other edits, creating work for other editors to correct your entries, perhaps you should post a draft on the Talk page first, so you can get help with prose and reference formatting. The content leading to catechin immune function where you made an edit created an error in reference formatting that was visible in bold red in the preview screen. --Zefr (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Removed from article - (+)-catechin has been used to treat acute viral hepatitis (Assessment and Management of Hepatobiliary Disease, p 371) and was marketed under the name Catergen by Zyma (now Novartis). Severe side effects (see Catechin#Immune function) lead to the withdrawal of the drug.
Zefr - why did you remove the reference to immune function? This is very well documented and the reference used is not a primary source but a review article. It is relevant and the information is used for example in the toxicological assessment of phenolic compounds. I appreciate that we disagree about the inclusion of historic data - but the ability of catechin to cause haemolytic anaemia via auto-antibodies is neither a historic remark nor irrelevant. I'm happy to provide more details about this if necessary - but a paragraph on catechin-bioactivity should include these effects as well. Ggux (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Zefr - if I were to write and publish a systematic review on catechin, would this be a sufficient source to include here?Ggux (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that the proposed statement is appropriate with a suggested modification by Roches to make the statement more specific by using specific years. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe a brief overview of the historical use of catechin is appropriate in an encyclopaedic article and belief the following statement is appropriate
"Catechin-containing extracts have a long been used for the treatment of heart diseases,[1][2] and an effect on the permeability of capillaries has been shown 1936.[3]" It does not give overdue importance to historical data, but it puts current research into context.
Is it? Ggux (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(help)
The consensus is that the proposed statement is relevant and should be rewritten slightly as suggested by Maproom. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Catechin has been used as a drug in the 1970s and 1980s (under the name 'Catergen'), but the drug has been withdrawn after it was discovered that catechin can result in the formation of auto-antibodies - which resulted in severe side effects including fatalities. In my opinion, the effect of catechin on the immune system is therefore relevant and the following paragraph should be included: "Catechin and its metabolites can bind tightly to red blood cells and thereby induce the development of Autoantibody, resulting in haemolytic anaemia and renal failure. [1] This has resulted in the withdrawal of the catechin-containing drug Catergen, used to treat viral hepatitis [2], from market in 1985. [3]" Ggux (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catechin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Catechin is found in a variety of muscle enhancing products, like: Epicatechin, Epigenin, EP1Logue, Epiplex, and more...
It is said to improve a natural production of Follistatin in the body, and can be taken orally as an alternative to Follistatin.
The doses for Follistatin and Catechin are pretty much equal. Test subjects were subject to 1mg per kg of body weight, with an average of 76mg of either dose. Test subjects in this case averaged around 167 LBS. Test results showed an increase in follistatin in the body, which is a myostatin inhibitor. The tests were not performed long enough, to see long term muscle development and progress. Both myostatin as follistatin that can be bought online, are prescribed at 300-400mg per pill; and taken orally once every 24 hours. Some versions have half the dose, requesting to be orally taken twice a day (12 hours interval).
Contrary to taking follistatin, catechin is an all natural product, which will have your body create more follistatin, as where follistatin is more chemical in nature, and will just add more follistatin in the bloodstream. This lead to a few controversial thoughts:
The upper limit on this product has not yet been determined; taking this product in a too high concentration will block myostatin, rather than reduce it. The rest is waste product, that will leave the body; but not a lot is known as to how much catechin or follistatin the body can handle
It is possible to overdose in length of time.
Epicatechin recommends never to use this product over a continuous, 4 weeks time frame.
It's thought that continue to take this product, will reduce the signal to kill off bad and old cells; allowing both new and old cells to grow in the muscle tissue.
The older cells have a much higher chance on developing into cancers or tumors, which is why it is recommended to have a downtime with this product.
While Catechin and Follistatin are known to affect muscle strength and size, this also holds true for the heart.
Little research has been done, on other organs, like the liver, brain, and kidneys. We can say with fair accuracy, that follistatin does not affect the skin, as animals like mice and cows have been seen shredding their skin lines, due to overgrowth of muscles!
BMI scans have indicated a simultaneous decrease in body fat, while increase of muscle mass in the areas where muscles grew.
There is rumors about ligaments breaking and becoming brittle with this product.
There is no scientific studies that back this up, however it's highly possible, that due to the rapid enlargement of muscles, tendons and ligaments might not be able to grow at the same rate, causing them to splice open and tear.
Whenever rapid rates of muscle growth are seen, ligaments do not only suffer from the greater forces the muscles can handle, but also their width girth and circumference, which add additional lateral stresses to the tendons.
Aside from potential cancer and tumor growth; people taking follistatin can experience occasional ravenous hunger.
Especially the first hours after use, when the body usually would be requiring food, and normally using up muscle protein (but now does no longer have access to it).
There are no recorded side effects with Catechin yet (not implying that there are none). Potentially the same hunger might also exist as with follistatin.
When stopping or ending a follistatin therapy, there is a possibility that the body might experience rapid muscle deterioration for weeks to months.
Since Follistatin is more a drug, than a natural building block, the body might get used to the added follistatin supplements, and stop producing it's own.
It's a danger that should be taken into consideration.
Catechin does not seem to have these side effects as much, but they still might be prevalent. Which is why stopping a treatment, is best done gradually.
Original research into Catechin and Follistatin was done, because of people suffering from heart diseases. Mostly people who are thin by nature, and have a very low muscle tone, and where high cholesterol, and heart attacks are in the family.
Follistatin and Catechin were suggested as a solution for them to add as a supplement, to help their bodies develop more muscle tone, and a stronger healthier heart. It also seems to improve the cardiovascular system; but not a lot of research has been done in this yet.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-UHFFFAOYSA-N. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 29#PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-UHFFFAOYSA-N until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)