Talk:Chondroitin sulfate

message: Structure???
How come there are 7 carbon atoms in both these sugar units?? Should C1 not be bonded to C5, instead of as it is shown?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.173.62 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

message: I propose these two pages should be merged.  Chondroitin sulfate is not really a form of chondroitin; they usually refer to the same entity.  Chondroitin sulfate is a sulfated polysaccharide -- i.e. the sulfate is covalently attached -- and not a sulfate salt. Chondroitin has been used to refer to a low- or un-sulfated form of chondroitin sulfate, but this may be just a precursor molecule, and furthermore the distinction is not made by all. Prithason 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - have you merged them yet?  Also, what other sources of Chondroitin exist besides various forms of animal cartilage, I have been taking it for many years and there are other sources as well (please more research) --Mrtobacco 23:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[chondroitin]]

message: In the Clinical trials section it says
"In patients with moderate to severe pain (WOMAC pain scores 301 – 400), the percent of patients with swelling and/or effusion tended to decrease from 30.0% at baseline to 14.9% (p=0.3, n=67) at the end of follow-up."
The probability, p=0.3, means that there is NO significant difference despite the treatment. Such an effect would occur by chance if the treatment had no effect once in every three studies. This result does not suggest that chondroitin supplements decrease pain. I suggest this line is removed.
--86.154.6.49 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect conclusion

message: In the figures concerning chondroitin sulfate structure, the alternate diagram displays a different bonding pattern between NAG and glucoronic acid than the structure presented above. I suggest to correct this mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.23.9 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect structure

message: I'll move the regulatory info to the appropriate section, but I'm not sure what the definition and difference between pharmacology and the pharmacokinetics sections are, so I'll leave the job of cleaning up the rest of the regulatory section to someone else to correct for now. 207.109.230.209 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have been misled by the headings. The Regulatory section is a subsection of Function that explains chondroitin's regulatory functions in the body, meaning that the content that was moved does actually belong in the pharmacology section. I'll move it back and add a clarifying comment to the regulatory section. Jstrater (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulatory section seems to have been swapped with content in the pharmacology section

message: Under medical uses: "in Europe and some other countries." Europe isn't a country. I didn't change it to "some countries inside and outside of Europe" or something of the sort because I don't have access to the source and don't know what the facts are, aside from the fact that Europe isn't a country so the statement "in Europe and some other countries" is meaningless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkOrinson (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Uses 

message: The paper on the analysis of chondroitin materials does not belong in the pharmacology section. It seems out of place. I already updated a few sentences in the regulatory section, which should be a special section as well. I would suggest to introduce a few comments or links on possible side effects or drug interactions. They are possible esp. in combination with NSAID's and other drugs interfering with blood clotting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.129.239 (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs clean-up

message: The structure in the Alternative Diagram is incorrect. GalNAc is a hexosamine. It is drawn with 5 carbons. PPMcC (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is incorrect.  I have now removed it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect chemical structure

message: From the article: "Chondroitin sulfate is a major component of extracellular matrix, and is important in maintaining the structural integrity of the tissue."
To which tissue(s) does this statement refer? 'Extracellular matrix' is a general term that applies to connective tissues in general; e.g. the extracellular matrices of bone, cartilage, adipose and blood are all different materials with different chemical compositions and physical structures. For more information, see connective tissue.
Without specifying the relevant tissue, this statement is useless. It would be like saying "hormone X acts on receptor, and is important for the proper function of the organ" without specifying which organ or organs it acts on, or which receptors.
This statement needs to indicate which tissue or tissues rely on chondroitin sulfate as a major compenent of their extracellular matrices. For example, "Chondroitin sulfate is a major component of the extracellular matrices of <tissue x> and <tissue y> and, as such, is important in maintaining the structural integrity of those tissues."  Vikingurinn (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the same problem occurs in the first line of the next section ( Function/Regulatory): "Chondroitin sulfate readily interacts with proteins in the extracellular matrix due to its negative charges." Admittedly, these statements could be revised by simply replacing "extracellular matrix" with "the extracellular matrices of certain tissues", but there really ought to be some tissues mentioned explicitly.  Vikingurinn (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural function: important in *which* tissues? 

message: The results are confusing to a lay person, and perhaps to others.
How about a discussion about why the results of studies seem to differ and what should we make of that.  Does it have to do with the entity that funded the study?  Is the supplement helpful in some respects but not in others?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.226.221 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about Research Results 

message: Hello! I just moved the content about osteoarthritis research to Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin. Please go to the talk page of that article for an explanation of why I did this. In short, the information was confusing, beyond the scope of what Wikipedia health articles should cover, and being independently developed in multiple places on Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved content to [[Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin]] 

message: This section is grossly filled with texts from primary literatures. I will removed it until those texts are backed by secondary sources.-Mys_721tx (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would proceed as you have, because primary references are usually used to support stuff that is WP:FRINGE and poorly supported.  But most of what you deleted is citing huge Phase 3 trials that were described in the NEJM.  I'm going to re-add, and try to find time to identify suitable secondary references over the next couple of days, as most of this is probably true, just not referenced well. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be great! Do you think they may better fit in Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin? -Mys_721tx (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Clinical Effect section 

message: I was doing a bit of research and noticed that the articles here on wikipedia pertaining to glucosamine and chondroitin contain a large amount of conflicting statements and information.
The 'Clinical Trials' page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trials_on_glucosamine_and_chondroitin) lists a review of 20 clinical trials on Chondroitin efficacy which states "large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged." This article however, states that "Most of the studies have evidenced a significant benefit in terms of pain reduction and improvement of functional capacity, as well as a reduction of joint swelling / effusion, all of them characteristic symptoms of [osteoarthritis]".  Unless I am reading something incorrectly, one of these statements is inaccurate.  
The clinical trials page states that trials have had mixed results, yet this article only mentions trials with positive results.  At the very least, the 'Clinical Effects' section of this article should be rewritten to provide a more accurate representation of clinical trials that have been performed, including those with negative results.  Darktangent (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that some users have moved information to the clinical trials page, though I haven't gone through what information was moved.  It is possible that moving information has caused this article to become inaccurate.  My suggestion would be to simply have the 'Clinical Effects' section direct to the 'Clinical Trials' page, and list all information there. Darktangent (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the first paragraph of the Clinical Effects section to show that results from clinical trials have been mixed, adding some information from the clinical trials page, including the systematic review of 20 trials conducted by Reichenbach et al.  The section still needs further review and rewriting.  If you revert my edit, please provide reasoning, otherwise I may revert it back. Darktangent (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Information with 'Clinical trials on glucosamine and chondroitin' page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chondroitin sulfate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060407052246/http://www.americanutra.com:80/itemdetail.cfm?ProductID=37 to http://www.americanutra.com/itemdetail.cfm?ProductID=37
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the following subsections are unsourced, moved here per [{WP:PRESERVE]].  Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without providing reliable sources. 
;Sulfation
Each monosaccharide may be left unsulfated, sulfated once, or sulfated twice.  In the most common scenario, the hydroxyls of the 4 and 6 positions of the N-acetyl-galactosamine are sulfated, with some chains having the 2 position of glucuronic acid.  Sulfation is mediated by specific sulfotransferases.  Sulfation in these different positions confers specific biological activities to chondroitin GAG chains.
;Structural
Chondroitin sulfate is a major component of extracellular matrix, and is important in maintaining the structural integrity of the tissue.  This function is typical of the large aggregating proteoglycans:  aggrecan, versican, brevican, and neurocan, collectively termed the lecticans.
As part of aggrecan, chondroitin sulfate is a major component of cartilage.  The tightly packed and highly charged sulfate groups of chondroitin sulfate generate electrostatic repulsion that provides much of the resistance of cartilage to compression.  Loss of chondroitin sulfate from the cartilage is a major cause of osteoarthritis.
;Regulatory
Chondroitin sulfate readily interacts with proteins in the extracellular matrix due to its negative charges. These interactions are important for regulating a diverse array of cellular activities.  The lecticans are a major part of the brain extracellular matrix, where the chondroitin sugar chains function to stabilize normal brain synapses as part of perineuronal nets. The levels of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans are vastly increased after injury to the central nervous system where they act to prevent regeneration of damaged nerve endings.  Although these functions are not as well characterized as those of heparan sulfate, new roles continue to be discovered for the chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans.
In cortical development, chondroitin sulfate is expressed by the Sub Plate and acts as a stop signal for neurons migrating from the Ventricular Zone. Neurons stopping here may then be programmed for further migration to specific layers in the cortical plate.
-- Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced 

message: although source no. 18 says a lot interesting stuff about the role of CS in inflammatory pathways, it contains no information about how CS is absorbed or if and how much labeled CS is found where in the body after oral administration. (para. "Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics": "More particularly, on the articular tissue, Ronca et al.[18] reported that chondroitin sulfate is not rapidly absorbed in the gastro-intestinal tract and a high content of labeled chondroitin sulfate is found in the synovial fluid and cartilage.")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.95.74.128 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect source [18] 

message: The structure suggests a -C-O-C- bridge, I think that should be a -O- bridge.
Simon de Danser (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge