Talk:Chitin

message: Chitin can potentially be used as bioplastic. 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghjgghj (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bioplastic

message: Chitin has been stubbifed.The Fox Man of Fire 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: I'm changing it to IPA.
Cameron Nedland 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: Removed stub tag. Removed sentence "Chitin is considered a type of carbohydrate and is part of the carbohydrates macromolecule.", as it was already stated above in more concise language. Article still needs expansion; chitin is a very important and abundant organic compound. Fuzzform 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few changes 

message: There is no source for the stand alone wound healing statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.193.72 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request source 

message: The source given for chitin as a medicinal tool, Halosource, does not accurately provide a source for this claim. Halosource is an antimicrobial product producer. Additionally, no where in the website linked is chitin mentioned openly.
As a researcher, I would hope the author making this claim can provide a more academic source. Luminaux (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Claims and needs for better sources 

message: There is probably as much poly n-acetylglucosamine in the form of fungal walls as in the crustaceans and insects...how come there is no mention of this very common source of chitin?
For reference, see: http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/learning/resources/Mycology/StructureFunction/wallComposition.shtml  Gbrynes (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is chitin truly the main component of fungal cell walls? I believe that there is a much larger amount of glucans than chitin in the :cell walls of fungi, and there's no source for the claim. I'd change it to read that its an important or unique component of the :cell wall, rather than the main.173.65.160.226 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FUNGI?

message: Is it a digestible polysaccharide, like starch, or an indigestible one like cellulose?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary 

message: The article currently states that chitin is present in fungi and in some animals; and then that "Chitin first appeared in the exoskeletons of Cambrian arthropods, e.g., trilobites.". Animals and fungi, being opisthokonts, have a common origin separate from other living forms, but had certainly separated before Cambrian arthropods appeared. So the article currently implies that chitin was invented separately by fungi and animals. I doubt that that was the case.
Maybe what is meant is that chitin first appears in the exoskeletons of Cambrian arthropods... In other words, that that is where it is first found in the fossil record; not that that is necessarily when it really first existed.
--David Olivier (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch!  The citation at the end of the paragraph doesn't mention trilobites at all, so presumably applies only to the second sentence.  I've changed the problematic sentence to "Chitin was present in the exoskeletons of Cambrian arthropods such as trilobites.", since we don't know for sure there aren't older fossilised chitinous organisms.  As far as I know, the actual chitin itself in trilobites hasn't been recovered; its presence is inferred by some other means.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing it to "Chitin first appears in the fossil record in the exoskeletons of Cambrian arthropods such as trilobites."?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Adrian's version is best, if in effect the presence of chitin is inferred rather than found; "chitin first appears" can be ambiguous, suggesting that preserved chitin appears in the remains. --David Olivier (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did animals reinvent chitin? 

message: Didn't chitin used to be sold to bind fats in the stomach so they would not be digested, and sold on late-night infomercials? That's how I heard about it. Maybe something to add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.133.32 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary use of chitin? 

message: In the sentence 'These words were derived from the Greek word chitōn, meaning mollusk, that is, influenced by the Greek word khitōn, meaning "tunic" or "frock"', what was influenced by the Greek word khiton?  It's not clear to me.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was influenced by the Greek word?   

message: According to the article, "The immobilized protein is purified and released from the beads by cleaving off the chitin binding domain."
I don't think that is how it works. I think the protein is released by elution with a solution of chitobiose, the dimer 
of N-Acetylglucosamine, which competes with the chitin-binding sites. Can anyone with practical biomedical expertise confirm this? Plantsurfer (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomedical research 

message: Bird plumage and butterfly wing scales are often organized into stacks of nano-layers or nano-sticks made of chitin nanocrystals that produce various iridescent colors by thin-film interference. This sentence would imply that chitin is a component of bird plumage. Is it corect? --Mirrordor 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the offending sentence to mention that analogous structures made of keratin are seen in bird plumage.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chitin in feathers? 

message: Chitin sounds quite a lot like "chicken", and if someone said it fast you might end up here instead
ed588 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like chicken? 

message: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070118161742.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.58.163 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on white than milk or human tooth 

message: The opening paragraph links to the lissamphibia page, then cites a source about two amphibians that produce chitin. I changed the link to the amphibian page but it was reverted. Is there a good reason for the less specific and confusing link? 2001:BB6:315F:3658:84E6:3D1B:F519:8DA5 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is a lissamphibian?