Talk:Ergosterol

message: Does anybody know which foods are rich in ergosterol? I've seen suggestions that leafy green vegetables, fungi and soybeans (legumes in general?), are, but couldn't verify this.  --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorn2 (talk • contribs) 
:Shiitake mushrooms are supposed to be rich in ergosterol as well.  Badagnani 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which foods are rich in ergosterol?

message: When I click the MeSH link for this steriod, the resulting page says 'term not found' -- EgonWillighagen 07:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MeSH term not correct? 

message: While there is no doubt thar fungi and yeasts use ergosterol for structure and thus make D2 when exposed to UV, yet at the same time it is also true that a few plants make 7-dehydrocholesterol, perhaps as a dedicated light sensor, and thus make D3 with the aid of UV-- just to show nature is complicated . 
The following chapter link probably can be got to, by googling "vitamin d3 from plants", as it has internal brackets in it that keep it from being used directly:
http://www.dtu.dk/upload/fødevareinstituttet/food.dtu.dk/publikationer/2012/phd-thesis-rie_japelt[1].pdf
Bottom line: some soreheads need to work this out in their worldviews. Sorry! SBHarris 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: SB, don't doubt this could be true, but the first source is a book chapter that makes clear it is proposing an interpretive hypothesis (besides its being without complete sourcing), and the second is a dissertation. Come across any good reviews that say this, so we can run with it?  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: D3 in plants? Yep

message: The following speculative medical claim regarding antimour activity and ergosterol, with the current two weak sources, is neither sufficiently specific in the text, here, nor adequately enough sourced to remain, given the importance of the claim to human health. The sources are not secondary sources as required by WP policies, and they are not the relevant, accepted, authoritative biomedical sources for such claims—they are not appropriate leading medical secondary sources, and are over a decade old. If this claim for a therapeutically important biological activity has been substantiated in the decade plus since these reports, there should be ample secondary (review, etc.) literature, including in leading medical journals. Here is the primary source-only claim, and the sources: 
The statement is placed here so that if it can be substantiated, it can be returned to the article with the better secondary source referencing. Note the preceding sentence in Uses was left in, in shortened form, though it has no citation, because it is scientific and not a therapeutic claim. This was one of two sentences, the first of which made sense, the second of which was both very specific, and difficult to understand or clearly relate to the first (without presuming facts not stated). Hence, enough of this material left to give the chance to research and complete that claim of Uses, and to source it. If it is not improved, it should also be moved out. Wikipedia is not a place for editor speculation about scientific uses of natural products. We report the preponderance of scientific evidence for important uses, and not the stray, trust-me suggestions of editors not giving sources, or even the potentially valuable first appearance of an idea in primary sources (because to do so is WP:OR). Le Prof   Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Uses section antitumour claim here