Talk:Gliadin

message: The sentence "It is around 60% soluble in ethanol" in this article is nonsense. When you try to solve a substance (in this case Gliadin) in a given solvent (like alcohol) everything will solve (given enough time) until a fixed maximum (a saturated solution). Talking about percentage solubility is therefore obviously an error. I asume that the origina source this was quoted from said something like "Gliadin is solvable in 60% ethanol". 60% then refers to the concentration of alcohol, not the solubility of the protein. I'm not absolutely sure though. Does anyone have a source on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.97.19 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
If you can find several sources using the term that do not stem from William Davis then go ahead and make an article for it and link it in See Other but after the first 5 Google pages of search it is ALL stemming from him.  97.85.168.22 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Wheat Belly' 

message: The entire sentence "(Discovery of?) this protein and subsequent intolerance is a result of genetic testing in the 1960s and 1970s carried out by genetic researchers" is incredibly suspect and misleading.  First, the introduction of semi-dwarf wheat by Orville Vogel and Norman Borlaug did not magically create gliadin, as this sentence and its source suggests.  Gliadin is a class of proteins referring to the gluten in wheat.  Similarly, Hordein refers to those found in barley, and Avenin refers to those found in oats.  It is in all ancestral strains.  However, "the dominant T-cell responses are to epitopes that cluster within a stable 33mer fragment formed by physiologic digestion of distinct α-gliadins" .  This article goes on to say that some diploid and tetraploid wheat varieties may lack this epitope, opening up the suggestion that this more immunogenic isoform of gliadin was introduced with hexaploid or even the dwarf wheat strain that is an ancestor of all modern wheat varieties.  However, it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that gliadin was absent in ancient wheat varieties.  Secondly, the "genetic testing... carried out by genetic researchers" is- while accurate- a very misleading way to phrase the sentence.  To most people, this translates to "modern wheat is a genetically engineered monstrosity," whereas they really mean "modern semi-dwarf wheat was produced from traditional breeding by wheat breeders (aka population geneticists)." This is exactly how the author of that source  sells his point of view.  It pulls at people's fears to make them believe whatever else they have to say. Finally, do we really want an article from CBS news as a source on wikipedia?  Lets keep this page and everything else based on peer-reviewed scientific articles please. 
--Areun2 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Testing 

message: The current section referencing SOD and glisodin has been so heavily modified that it no longer makes sense!  Perhaps someone could look at it, and fix it up!  Thanks.  Jpaulm (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glisodin 

message: The gluten page says "Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin" but on here it says "Gliadins and gluten are essential for giving bread the ability to rise properly during baking." But if gluten is made of a gliadian and a glutenin, does that sentence make sense?
--maye (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gluten 

message: First reference links to http://www.accessscience.com/content.aspx?searchStr=wheat&id=744900, which is a bad URL. 86.173.220.100 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference is a dead link