Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Tumor necrosis factor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconPharmacology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: MCB / Cell Signaling
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Cell Signaling task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Untitled

[edit]

I found some historical information here. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- why is it called 'tumor necrosis factor' -- some background would be good, I'll see what I can find --hmackiernan

"Inhibition of TNFα promotes the inflammatory response, which in turn causes many of the clinical problems associated with autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, and psoriasis. These disorders are sometimes treated by inhibiting TNFα "

This seems contradictory. If inhibition of TNFa promotes the inflammatory response, why would you treat these conditions by inhibiting TNFa??

I noticed the above contradiction as well and think the first part of the phrase must be an error. However, I'm not a medical expert, so I don't dare edit the TNF page.

I removed the offending phrase (as I am about to refer people to the page). Out of curiosity, I just went back and checked the history. It was clearly an editing glitch, with the phrase left over from what is now covered in the second sentence. -- Bob Kerns

viral replication

[edit]

doesnt tnf block instead of cause viral replication??? Martious 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How about Tumor Necrosis Factor beta? It is not discussed at all in this page. TNF-alpha is involved in Toxic Shock Syndrome among other things. I can't find any decent (recent) reviews on the topic.

disabling auto updates

[edit]

Arcadian, just wondering why you chose to disable all updates of the ProteinBoxBot. Clearly this is a pretty mature article so the impact of PBB edits is proportionally less. (And this was also one of our first edits, and in retrospect, I would not have added the summary and further reading sections where reasonable summaries and reference lists exist.) Was there a particular reason you also wanted to disable the infobox updates? Not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to understand for the purposes of making sure PBB plays nicely with human editors... AndrewGNF 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More general entry: TNF, then subheadings TNF-alpha, TNF-beta?

[edit]

I'm currently studying this stuff, so I'm no expert, but I'm noticing some confusion. Wouldn't it make sense to merge the entry on TNF with the present one? It could start with a general discussion of TNF and then differentiate between the two types. 85.178.26.162 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is clear to me that this article is much better than the [Tumor necrosis factors]] article (which contains very little). I strongly suggest that they are merged.JustAnotherKinase (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed merger because there are (as of 2007) 19 identified members of the TNF family. I agree that this main page is much better than the TNF family ("factors") page, but the family page needs updating and expansion. The expansion would make it unwieldy inside the main TNF page.C4dn (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the first sentence is very good. can you do the same for osteoclast activating factor

[edit]

osteoclast activating factor has a bunch of different names that it goes by and I think it has sorta evolved with time. I am impressed by the first sentence / alternate names of TNF-alpha and wish someone would do the same for Osteoclast activating factor. Off the top of my head I think it is IL-6 and a subtype of IL-1. But I'm probably wrong so please verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.212.236 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=osteoclast+activating+factor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.grt.kyushu-u.ac.jp/spad/account/ligand/il1.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=9EO&q=osteoclast+activating+factor+IL-1&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.212.236 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did  you remove the clooned form in the consept.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.153.152 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the cytokine formerly known as

[edit]

Why does the first sentence include the line "formerly known as tumor necrosis factor-alpha or TNF-α" when it is still currently known as TNF-α? I see that there is a section at the bottom citing a paper which declares the opinion that it should be simply called 'TNF', but this should not imply that everyone else is following this opinion. markwdck (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I the term "TNF" is completely ambiguous, if you read the literature (i.e. pubmed) everyone refers to the cytokine as TNF-α. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.176.212 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just wrong. "tumor necrosis factor-α" is still being used. E.g. Association between tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists and risk of cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. JAMA. 2014 Jun 18;311(23):2406-13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5613. I'm going to change it. --Nbauman (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Interferon, alpha 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

[edit]

This article uses TNFα without a hyphen. Elsewhere on wikipedia (such as when discussing TNF-ß), and in some literature, we see it with. Which usage is standard, or can both forms be freely used? --James Chenery (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see many 2020 journal articles referring to TNF-α, so I see no basis for the claim that this name is obsolete. I have modified this reference in the introduction. --Ben Best:Talk 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AdeptLearner123 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 01:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


From the GARC, going to review this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still plan on reviewing this? Following up since it's been 7 days. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense review

[edit]

I'm going to help out TheNuggeteer review this article. I'll start by doing a source review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Source review

[edit]
  • The first thing that jumps out to me here is how old some of your sources are. Per WP:MEDDATE "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." This can be a bit hard to keep up with so I will generally forgive sources written in at least the last 10-20 years however you have sources from the 1940's and that makes me question the reliability of these sources. This is a pretty big topic that I would assume should have more up-to-date sources. I will need to do a full source review to determine if this is a big enough issue to warrant a fail but I would highly encourage you to try to update the sources written before 2000. I do see that some of these are in the history section however there is older sources used in the rest of the article as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced several pre-2000 references outside of the History section. However, the section Protein > Soluble Form contains information about the secondary / tertiary protein structure that is not included in more recent reviews. Should I keep the old reference or remove this info entirely? AdeptLearner123 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically if a study or its findings are not referanced in newer studies then they may be outdated and I would kind of go with your best judgement here. WP:MEDDATE says "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews" which may be relivant here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the 1989 info about secondary / tertiary is still relevant, as the same paper is referenced in the protein data bank: https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1tnf. My guess for why recent sources have not reviewed this information is because it is not relevant to current areas of research. I feel like we should keep the information and reference the 1989 article, as this is what protein data bank references. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable to me as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a number of references to primary sources as well as animal studies. While the article does make it clear that these are animal studies, this again leads me to question the sources used here. My main question is, does this content need to be here and is there more relevant human studies? While I again recognize that these are mostly used in the history section I am still questioning how relevant these are. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the history section, I reference primary sources because I want to describe the experiments that led to a certain discovery. The details of experiments are usually not discussed in review articles, hence I need to cite the primary source. Many of these discoveries, such as the discovery that TNF is a pyrogen, were first discovered in mice, hence the citation of animal studies. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is totally fair and I wrote most of that comment before realizing they were in the history section (oops) however I do feel that the history section itself may be a bit long. I think it might be best to trim some of that section honestly. Even looking at the first paragraph of the history section I might choose to rewrite it from:
    "In the 1890s, William B. Coley, based on anecdotes of cancer patients being cured by sudden attacks of erysipelas, theorized that bacterial infections had a beneficial effect against tumors, particularly sarcomas. Coley was able to successfully treat cancer patients by injecting them with a mixture of bacterial toxins from heat-sterilized Streptococcus and Bacillus prodigiosus in and around the tumors, causing the tumors to hemorrhage. However, the effectiveness of this treatment was inconsistent and repeated injections caused severe side effects such as chills and fevers, causing the treatment to be discontinued"
    to:
    In the 1890s, William B. Coley, based on anecdotes of cancer patients being cured by sudden attacks of erysipelas, theorized that bacterial infections had a beneficial effect against tumors. He successfully treated cancer patients by injecting them with a mixture of bacterial toxins in and around the tumors, causing the tumors to hemorrhage. However, repeated injections caused severe side effects such as chills and fevers, causing the treatment to be discontinued
    I haven't read the source fully so I'm not sure the true weight of the information I removed however little changes like this throughout the history section could be helpful. I will go into more detail about this with the prose review and review of the article but I thought I would give you a heads up about that. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that it is important to specify that Coley used these to treat sarcomas, since they are a special type of tumor that is difficult to reach surgically. It also explains why the observation that TNF hemorrhages sarcomas does not generalize to hemorrhaging all tumor types. Otherwise, it may be confusing if the history section says TNF hemorrhages tumors, while the clinical significance section says that TNF promotes tumor growth.
    I also think it is important to mention that the treatment was inconsistent, since it connects to the later observation that endotoxins only hemorrhage tumors in the presence of an infection. Otherwise it would be confusing that Coley's endotoxins killed all sarcomas, while Lloyd's endotoxins did not kill sarcomas.
    On the other hand, I can see how this information is difficult to parse. Maybe I should include additional explanations to make things clearer? That would make the history section even longer though. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a tricky situation. I have two possible fixes for this.
    1. I would honestly say that you have enough info to split the page from Tumor necrosis factor#History to just History of Tumor necrosis factor and that way you could keep the amount of detail you have in the current article in the History of Tumor necrosis factor (and possibly add some extra extra content to that article cause of the no content forks rule). Then you could summarize what you already have in the history section on the TNF page if that makes sense.
    2. You could try to look through the rest of the history section and see if any of the types of changes I mentioned before could be made to other areas of the article.
    However if you do truly feel that all of the information is relevant then I’m okay with leaving it as is if you aren’t comfortable/don’t want to make a second page for the history section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I feel like the history of TNF is neither long enough nor notable enough to warrant its own page. I'd prefer to keep the content as it is, but if there is any portion that is difficult to understand then I will add additional context. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good I’m happy with that as well however I may ask for a second opinion regarding the readability and length of that section. It depends how I’m feeling with the prose review. I will say that the history section does seem very well worded and fairly easy to follow so good work on that! I will be doing a more in depth source review in the next few days. This includes me manually checking each of your citations for either plagiarism or issues with text source integrity. This might take awhile but I’ll keep you updated as I go! IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done With sufficient reasons. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead:

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History:

Fixed the PMCID for ref 15. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protein:

Updated the reference AdeptLearner123 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Function:

The rest:

Prose review

[edit]
  • Before getting too much into the source review I want to voice my concerns about readability with this article. I understand how hard it can be to make these kinds of articles easy to understand however this is a part of the GA criteria. The lead (particularly the first 3 paragraphs) need to be made more understandable to a broad audience. The history section I think needs to be trimmed a bit. The section "Isolation, sequencing, and expression" could use some work to make it more readable as well. The gene and protein sections could also use some modifications to make them more readable. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable is a great place to start with tackling this type of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time you use an acronym it needs to be used in full per MOS:1STOCC. There are many occasions in this article where you use acronyms without putting the full form. If you could fix this that would be helpful. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The acronyms seem to be in the following categories:
    • Names of techniques: DEAE, HPLC, SDS-PAGE
    • Commonly known acronyms: cDNA, mRNA
    • Protein names: TNFR1, TNFR2, GM-CSF, NFAT, ATF-2, Ets, etc
    I've expanded TNFR1 / TNFR2 to the full form in the first occurrence. I'm not sure how helpful it would be to use the full forms of acronyms that are names of techniques or proteins, since they aren't that descriptive of their function. What do you think? AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the gene names are okay for sure as well as the common acronyms however i do remember reading something in the history section about sequencing that had an acronym not previously defined. i’m on mobile right now but i’ll come back to this when on my laptop. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to be made less technical but I think the other sections are okay. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to the sentences that are too technical? I'll try to reword and add context to make it less technical, although I'm hesitant to remove information as I feel like each sentence is important for an overview. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it’s difficult to make things less technical but a lot of people just read the lead. I’m on my phone right now but tomorrow I will break down each sentence of the lead and point out which ones are in my opinion too technical. information doesn’t necessarily need to be removed just made more understandable. sometimes this does involve removing info but you could always add some of that info back into the body of the article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cancer patients" I would change this to "people with cancer" per WP:MEDLANG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used "cancer patients" in the History section since that was their relation to William Coley, who was a surgeon and cancer researcher. I'm also concerned that using "people with cancer" will make the sentence more convoluted. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s okay since you’re talking about a case study so I won’t fight you on this one but it’s something to watch out for with the rest of the article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coley was able to successfully treat cancer patients by injecting them with a mixture of bacterial toxins from heat-sterilized Streptococcus and Bacillus prodigiosus in and around the tumors, causing the tumors to hemorrhage" bit of a run-on sentence. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ignore this it’s not a run on just long. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to causing sarcomas to hemorrhage in vivo, TNF was also cytotoxic to L-929 cells, a transformed cell line, in vitro. Cytotoxicity to L-929 cells in vitro became the standard technique for detecting TNF. TNF was cytotoxic to cancerous and transformed cell lines, but not to normal, untransformed cell lines, raising hopes that it could be used as a cancer therapy." I think it's important to define what in vivo and in vitro mean in this context as I'm a bit confused by this statement. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added definitions. I reworded the paragraph a bit to hopefully make it more accessible to a wider audience. I'm wondering if "neoplastic cell line" is too technical, and if I should use "abnormal cell line" instead. "Abnormal" is a bit vague, but easier to understand. What do you think? AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The observation that TNF induces wasting and endotoxic shock led to rethinking its potential role as a cancer therapy." This is a bit vague, could you expand on this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded this to "The adverse side effects of TNF, such as muscle wasting and endotoxin shock, reduced hopes that it could be used to treat cancer." This makes it clearer what "rethinking" is referring to. Lmk if any other part is vague AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a couple times where I feel like your sentences kinda jump all over the place. for example the sentence "In the 1890s, William B. Coley, based on anecdotes of cancer patients being cured by sudden attacks of erysipelas, theorized that bacterial infections had a beneficial effect against tumors, particularly sarcomas." jumps back and forth when it could be reworded to In the 1890s, William B. Coley theorized that bacterial infections had a beneficial effect against tumors, particularly sarcomas, based on anecdotes of cancer patients being cured by sudden attacks of erysipelas. The second sentence flows much better. Some other examples of this include {alternating colours so you can tell when one sentence ends and another begins): They discovered that mice infected with Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), upon exposure to endotoxin, produced serum that could kill sarcomas in other mice. Meanwhile, uninfected mice, upon exposure to endotoxin, produced serum that did not kill tumors. In June 1981, Ian A. Clark et al. found that healthy mice infected with Plasmodium vinckei, a malaria-causing parasite, upon exposure to endotoxin, developed malaria-like symptoms such as liver damage, hypoglycemia, and blood clotting, while also releasing mediators including TNF. and In September 1981, Masanobu Kawakami and Anthony Cerami investigated the tendency of endotoxins to cause high levels of fat in the blood, known as hypertriglyceridemia, when injected into animals. These 5 examples are just from the history section alone. I would advise you to check over the rest of the article to see if this is a reoccurring issue. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tumor_necrosis_factor&oldid=1244100048"