Talk:S-Adenosyl methionine

message: I have added a mergefrom.  Shouldn't be hard to do! --Slashme 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Kcordina 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from S-adenosylmethionine

message: I will have a look at cleaning this up some time! --Slashme 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Sure I don't know how to add hyperlinking or add references that only authorized people may have access to. -RS
The comment below was copied from Talk:S-adenosylmethionine during merging. Kcordina 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: though i've yet to find a reliable source to site via internet, the therapeutic dose of SAMe is not usually 800-1600mg/day.  in fact it is usually 200mg/day.  1600mg would be considered a very large dose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlequence (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dosage 

message: We presently list the various salt forms along with (what appears to be?) the manufacturers that supply each. Or the commercial/brand-names that have them (I don't even know what some of the named companies are). The adjacent cite (University of Maryland Medical Center webpage) seems to be silent on the whole issue of suppliers, so that ref seems misplaced and the whole "who supplies what" uncited. I'm not sure it's worthy content (WP not a product directory) but it might be useful; I have no objection to keeping it with proper citation. Or is there some external product guide that we could just link? DMacks 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. There was not enough room but the revert was to: 16:10, April 25, 2007 DMacks. The reference does support multiple forms: "Available Forms: S-adenosylmethionine butanedisulfonate S-adenosylmethionine disulfate ditosylate S-adenosylmethionine disulfate tosylate S-adenosylmethionine tosylate". In order to provide the information as to which manufacturer is using which form one must go to the manufacturers sites. These could be included.—Who123 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt forms 

message: The "Usage" section is in need of a major rewriting...it's written as an instruction manual, not an encyclopedia entry. While reading the refs to figure out what was actually supported, I noticed that even worse, our section is nearly verbatim copy of the cited wholehealthmd ref, so I'm commenting it out until at least the copyvio issue can be resolved. DMacks 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be more helpful to re-write aspects to improve them rather than commenting the section out. With the section commented out, it is difficult to improve.—Who123 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the section. If it is thought that the section no longer potentially violates copyright then the tag should be removed.—Who123 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better. I just worked on it some more too...now it's clearly not copyvio. I would have worked on it if I'd had time when I first noticed it, but otherwise, "remove copyrighted material" is always a viable thing to do per WP:COPYVIO policy. DMacks 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is much better. I think it is better to rewrite to avoid potential copyvio than lose information. Thanks!—Who123 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut parts from the Usage section.  Brands should not be identified as using specific salt forms because companies will change formulas based on changes to cost of ingredients. Also, there is no clear evidence that one salt form is superior to another, either for stability or absorption.David notMD (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio in "Usage" section 

message: Guys, the link http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/SAdenosylmethionineSAMecs.html is dead. Thought you'd like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.188.3 (talk) 
:Thanks for noticing that! I changed the article's link to point to (what I think is) the same page on their re-organized webdite. DMacks 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: In the Therapeutic Uses section there is a link to a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat1a.chapter.2159)  In the conclusions section of this report under the heading "The Use Of SAMe For The Treatment Of Depression" There is the sentence "Possible publication bias was identified that may temper the strength of the conclusions we report."  This is a blatant admission that this study is biased and therefore it should not be included as a reference. Mikef777 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Publication bias is a technical term describing the tendency of people to publish positive findings and not publish negative ones. This needs to be corrected for in meta-analyses. The fact that the authors in this meta-analysis were not able to measure how large this effect was does not make them biased themselves, in the usual sense of the word. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, ok makes sense. Mikef777 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Bias 

message: Someone actually had one of those legal disclaimers in here: "You should consult with your physician before and during use".  Now WP:MEDICAL aside, is there any one moon man in the world who actually would do this?  I can just picture you out there, having waited two and a half months for your appointment, sitting in the waiting room with the swine flu sneezers and the diarrhea infants, so you can rattle your bottle of pills before the doctor's eyes and get his sage advice on this remedy he would never prescribe.  Your insurance company would probably get you prosecuted for fraud and thrown out on the chain gang!  You'd be there telling your sad, sad story, and they'd laugh and say, "You trusted medical advice you found on Wikipedia???..." Wnt (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd disclaimer 

message: While subjective reports obviously can't be used in a Wikipedia article, I think those experimenting with the compound might be able to identify useful topics for further evaluation.  I think it would be productive if a few tasters would post "trip reports" and compare notes.  (Those interested might prefer not to read these comments until making their own:)
On three trials I found this substance to have a far more dramatic effect than usual nutritional supplements, which seemed entirely centered on the circulatory system, which I perceived (perhaps erroneously) to be an opening of capillaries or small vessels.  The most striking effect of a 400mg dose, coming on about an hour after use, was a sense of much greater circulation in the most lateral parts of the cerebrum (the area supplied by the middle cerebral artery, at least approximately); this was paired with the reverse sensation of apparent constriction between 36-48 hours afterward in the same region.  (Note however that the effect also felt similar to that which caffeine produces in the front of the brain and eyes, and caffeine actually reduces blood flow - the sensation could be deceptive).  The withdrawal was somewhat unpleasant but not as bad as for caffeine.  This period of effectiveness also involved greater apparent blood flow in most muscles, but a substantial chill in the fingers and toes.  There was a much increased hissing in the ears from blood flow during the period of effect (not the sort of tinnitus following a loud noise but not pulsating either).  All this blood flow was matched by an uncomfortably high burden on the heart rate.  It was also my opinion that blood did not pool in the tissues normally, but flowed quickly back sometimes putting uncomfortable pressure at the entrance to the heart.
During one of the tests I continued taking the pills for three days; the effect of additional pills was quite mild.  For another I used 2/3 of a dose with similar effects, but experienced the withdrawal after 24 hours.  I felt that the drug had little or no effect on pain from sore tendons/muscles, but might be useful for other indications.
Propositions from this subjective experience:
* Because the substance was associated with both an onset and withdrawal during several cycles of use, I view it mechanistically as a drug rather than a nutritional supplement.
* The effect on arthritis might have to do with physical chilling of the joints or release of swelling by reduced capillary resistance?
* The effect on depression might be related to brain blood flow patterns, increased muscular circulation, or perhaps autonomic effects from increasing heartrate?
* The interaction with migraine headache would be interesting to hear about - would it be better or worse?
* The chilling of fingers/toes seems worrisome if frostbite or autoamputation due to diabetes is at issue. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Afterword: over the next week, without any further SAM usage, the "sore tendons" I mentioned deteriorated into a newly diagnosed case of gout (85 mg/l uric acid), which resolved in about two weeks with purine avoidance and 6 liters/day water.  This probably was not the first such instance; still I think that taking 130 mg daily of adenine (a component of SAM-e) was definitely not a good thing under the circumstances. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective reports 

message: Some places in the article say "SAMe" and others say "SAM-e".  Let's be consistent.  The question is which.  Based on a quick look at the first couple pages of google hits for the full name, it looks reasonable to go either way.  In commercial usage, "SAM-e" seems to be more common (perhaps because they want people to be able to find the product on case-insensitive searches like google), whereas the more logical "SAMe" seems to be more common in medical or scholarly discussions.  I lean in favor of "SAMe", but I don't really care as long as it's consistent. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old topic, but maybe worth revisiting. I second Felix' statement: few call it SAMe or SAM-e. AdoMet or SAM are the ones you read everywhere in literature. Also "Me" as an abbreviation for methionine is somewhat arbitrary, since that would be "Met" or "M" according to the community. So what's the "e" stand for? Brisbane (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version of the name? 

message: SAMe is involved in serotonin production. There is no evidence that SAMe increases extra cellular serotonin beyond natural levels or that it contributes to serotonin syndrome in the presence serotonergic drugs. I am removing this section. DrSparticle (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serotonin Syndrome 

message: The reference given for SAMe mediated parkinsonism states that 400mg/kg of SAMe was injected directly into the rats brains. This is the equivelent of injecting 30.4 grams of SAMe into the brain of a 12 stone human. This is nonsense.
The other references simply refer to this study. I am going to remove this section. DrSparticle (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkinsonism 

message: Please accept the edits to this page (February 13, 2013). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual, based upon review of the page with Abbott scientists with expertise in this area. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStoffelAbbott (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit From Abbott 

message: Newer reviews than what are currently in the article. I would try to incorporate, but I have a dietary supplement company as a client with this as a product. List from a PubMed search limited to meta-analyses or systemic reviews. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer secondary literature 

message: The article shows :File:SN2 Mechanism of Methyltransferases.png as mechanism for the methyltransfer. It also says it's "SN2"-like - which is correct. Then why does it show a definitely not SN2-like reaction? Also, the cytosine suddenly being flipped doesn't help with the readability. Any objections to deleting this? I might add a new figure in a couple of days. Brisbane (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism 

message: doi:10.1002/bmb.2005.49403304274 DMacks (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulfure chirality: Ref for future expansion