Talk:Taurine

taurine and ageing

Hey I have added information about the new research relating taurine and ageing. Can someone edit and make it more fit for Wikipedia and more accurate?ArmorredKnight (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The studies you added were done on mice and worms. It is not good evidence. It is also primary research, see WP:MEDRS to why we need reliable secondary sources for biomedical claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, the Nature article is a reliable secondary source. It is a review of the Science magazine research. ArmorredKnight (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a not a review paper [1]. It is an article that contains only 3 references all to animal studies, see WP:MEDANIMAL. All 3 references are studies done on mice and worms. This is not clinical evidence. There is no human data here. It is not good evidence and does not belong on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why animal data does not belong to Wikipedia. This is not only about the role of taurine in humans. After it is mentioned that cats can not produce taurine by themselves. If taurine solves sown the aging of animals, it should be mentioned. after it is an article about taurine. It is not an article about an exclusively taurine role in humans.85.250.134.64 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

also the rule says to avoid over emphasize, not to avoid mentioning at all.85.250.134.64 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. In many cases any mention at all is over emphasis. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll just note that the fact that the study only applies to animals is not relevant in terms of applicability to this specific article. This topic has been all over the news, so it is clearly notable. I'd suggest including cited concerns rather than dismissing it out of hand. Praemonitus (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct it has indeed been all over the news at the moment but it is nutritional misinformation from news sources which are not reliable sources for biomedical information. Many of these news sources have misrepresented the study [2], [3], [4], [5][6] and are making far-fetched claims. None of these are reliable to making biomedical claims about taurine. The paper notes that there is no clinical evidence as there is no human data currently [7]. In 10 years maybe we will know more. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:BMI, the concern regarding biomedical information is relevant to human health, not animals. Let me make the compromise proposal then to move a modified version under the "Animal physiology and nutrition" section, where it is also applicable. Would that be acceptable? My original addition made no claims about the study applying to humans; that was just speculation by the authors. Praemonitus (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to well sourced content about animals in "Animal physiology and nutrition" section so if you want to add something about rats or worms from the study. The only issue here is because the topic of aging was mentioned then other users might start adding in suggestions about human health. It's worth watching the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Massive undue weight, content is now being added to the lead [8]. We shouldn't be citing mice studies in the lead per WP:MEDANIMAL. The paper in question is already cited in the "Animal physiology and nutrition" section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not update the lead of the article as to not reverse whatever edit you are referring to here. However, I have included the relevant claims from the paper in question by (Singh et al., 2023, Science) that are also supported by data from their human participants in the EPIC-Norfolk study. I'm assuming we're acting in good faith, but a quick note that reading your comments here makes it very clear that you didn't read the paper in question which isn't very helpful for the discussion at hand. I appreciate that the paper is behind a paywall and I am not sure what the official policy on wikiepedia is for this, perhaps the policy should be for you to defer to individuals who have actually read the primary source? 198.254.126.140 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I added some text to the header (now deleted) with the intent of clarifying upfront that taurine deficiency has *not* been shown to increase aging and that taurine supplementation has *not* been shown to slow aging. There is a lot of misinfo about taurine on this. In my view, there ought to be something in the header that mentions that despite the possible effect in other animals, this has not been shown in humans. Thoughts?sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if the formatting here isn't right, although I have extensive experience in biomedical research, this is my first contribution to wikipedia. I would strongly reccomend including relevant facts from Singh et al., 2023 published in Science. The paper has extensive data from humans showing circulating taurine declines with age, that taurine increases with following excersise, and individuals with poor health have lower circulating taurine. However, we should also be clear that this does not prove that taurine supplementation shows a clinical benefit in humans, as noted by the researchers themselves we would need a randomized clinical study to prove this. The effect of taurine on animals shown by the research paper is fascinating and highly relevant to someone who is interested in taurine as a molecule. I understand that contributors are acting in good faith, but excluding relevant information to a wikipedia article because it's only in 'mice' and 'worms' is highly odd. It's worth noting that research teams spend years studying model animals such as mice. Animal studies are really interesting, least of all because we learn more about animal biology even if this is not relevant to humans. It's worth noting that the work by Singh et al., 2023 was done not only in mice but also rhesus monkeys, C. Elegans, and yeast. It may be worth creating an additional section for the animal studies to avoid confusing and misleading readers, but create a culture of excluding relevant data seems odd and highly offputting to someone with experience in the field like myself who could make genuine contributions to this article and wikipedia in general. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a review of preliminary lab research in animals (WP:MEDANIMAL), and inconclusive early-stage human research years from being put into context or confirmed as accepted, evidence-based facts. The encyclopedia is not a journal for documenting work in progress, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I updated my contribution to exclude data from animal studies entirely. I then read through the WP:MEDRS as you linked and updated my contribution to fit that guideline. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This paper you added [9] has already been cited many times on this talk-page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is not reliable for several reasons. If you read the paper it says "taurine deficiency may be a driver of aging because its reversal increases health span in worms, rodents, and primates and life span in worms and rodents. Clinical trials in humans seem warranted to test whether taurine deficiency might drive aging in humans". Basically there is no good clinical evidence at present. The correct attitude to this is a wait and see position, to wait until further trials are done and the results are published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that a core principle of the culture here is to assume positive intent but I do not feel like this is being given here. Apologies if I am not doing it right, this is my first ever contribution to wikipedia. I agree with every statement you have made and go to lengths to make sure my contribution meets your standards, yet it is removed and I don't fully understand why. My original contribution was removed under the WP:MEDANIMAL principle, but it didn't include any data from animal studies. You seem to suggest here that my contribution imply Taurine is some kind of health supplement, but I said the exact opposite. So why are you making this claim about my work in the discussion page? It seems now you take issue with the title of the resarch paper, which isn't the same as the contribution I made or the data which supports the statement I added to the page. I went to lengths to make sure the contribution referred only to large human study (12k participants) which shows only that taurine levels fall with age. I did this because I read through WP:MEDANIMAL which you suggested that I read, and I replicated the style and writing as reccomended there. I took time to read that on your suggestion because I am making an active effort to learn and be better. I would much prefer you explain in good faith to help me understand how to best contribute. Another point, frankly, your tone is abrasive you are happy to undo my work, but don't go to any effort to help or explain so I can learn and contribute in a more productive way. I am taking time out of my work day (postdoc) to try and be part of the communit. Frankly I don't think I will contribute to wikipedia again. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You were directed to a particular section of WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDANIMAL). You need to read and comply with the whole policy. Avoiding one (of many) pitfalls is not good enough I am afraid. You're still relying on primary sources (single studies) where a review article would be needed. - MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Taurine is commonly sold as a dietary supplement, but there is no good clinical evidence that taurine supplements provide any benefit to human health.[5]

I read the referenced article, #5. The original sentence in the Wikipedia article is slightly misleading. It would imply that large scale studies have been conducted, showing negligible benefit. I think what the author meant to say was that the existing studies have been too small to make the assertion of no benefit. There are many articles that suggest benefit. One example: "Taurine Provides Neuroprotection against Retinal Ganglion Cell Degeneration" by Nicolas Froger, et. al. (published 10/24/2012). The point is that the studies have been small, not that taurine has been "proven" to be ineffective. Billyarberry (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The text is correct. No good clinical evidence exists. The study you mention is not reliable, it is a study on mice [10] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - a good source?

I came across a 2021 meta-analysis and review of taurine's effects on some markers, and I wonder whether the journal is good enough. They report decreased C-reactive protein and malondialdehyde after taurine supplementation. My interest had been sparked by a recent news report on decreased taurine in the hippocampus in depression, in a small 7T MRI study on women. Cheers, --CopperKettle (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Although EJCN has an acceptable (but low, 4.5) impact factor, the issue is not whether the journal is "good", but rather what the review studied and found: only minor effects on two biomarkers, MDA and CRP. As reflected by the article's poor metrics (low cite numbers), the article has not had significant impact and is WP:UNDUE in related clinical disciplines, providing little value to understand possible effects of supplemental taurine. There is nothing encyclopedic to add. Zefr (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits 7 April 2025

Special:Diff/1284470222 by IP 76.136.112.80 included careless edits sourced to literature from outdated lab research. A review of article history and the talk page would show that these same topics had been discussed in prior years (and mostly dismissed by consensus).

Assessment of the WP:MEDRS literature would show no review sources within the past 5 years that meet a high quality of evidence discussed under WP:MEDASSESS. Zefr (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• @User:ZefrAs has been stated to you, you should have:

1. respected the clear "under construction" tag, at the Taurine article, indicating that work was ongoing.
2. not stymied the attempts at your Talk page to address what appeared to be a lapse of WP etiquette (response which included deletion of all posts); and
3. otherwise not displayed disrespect for us, as non-logging editors—for that is the only reason we can see for you having ignored that the editing was ongoing.

• We once again present the work of the hours that you have thwarted. Please note, contrary to your assertions above—

1. all unsourced material that was left in the artcle, was already there when we arrived;
2. our edits amounted to duplicating material unique to the lead, so that it would comply with WP:LEAD;
3. thereafter, our edit aimed to correct deficiences in the article and lead, by addition of material from source.

• In short, our work is always and thoroughly committed to editing in compliance with WP:VERIFY and all other relevant WP policies and guidelines, including—as was ingored today, the principle of AGF, and respecting all other editors at work. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Who is 'we'? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  We understand that how we choose to present pronouns is our business. We are not a business, and are not editing for profit, or in violation of WP:NPOV principles. Please review the collapsed content below to see that what we state above is accurate to our work. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  But are you more than a single person? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's evident your attempted revisions did not include a prior read of WP:MEDRS. Your revisions in the lead would have included the misinformation, "playing a central role in human physiology, and deficiency in its production or dietary access result in abnormalities that include developmental, and cardiac, renal, and ophthamologic dysfunctions", all of which is nonsense and has no MEDRS-quality sources (these don't exist).

  Also note for the "we" in your editing, WP:ISU. Zefr (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is our last interaction with you, because you continue to display a lack of good faith interaction. Among other matters, you fail to address by what right you ignored the {{in use}} article tag that should have allowed our continued editing to reach the next stage (as is presented in the collapsed text below). Otherwise, regarding your contention in re: missing a source, please see the citation of:

  You can check the bona fides for Mol. Vis.; Harris RIpps is in the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Physiology and Biophysics, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, as well as at The Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA—that is, he is not a promoter of misinformation about the title subject. The citation is valid, current enough, and well chosen.

  Which is presented in the collapsed text, in support of that and other statements taken direct from that source. Note as well that (i) Ripps is more recent than was the majority of citations upon which the lead was based as we found it, (ii) by interrupting our editing, you return material to the lead that we found unsourced, and removed critical missing material that complies with WP:LEAD and WP:VERIFY. We stand by our statement above, summarising our intent and work. 76.136.112.80 (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What we would have posted
--> Might be good to discuss ongoing research Seems some studies are being conducted which shows that it is correlated with blood cancer: https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/a-downside-of-taurine-it-drives-leukemia-growth 2601:1C2:C181:FF20:E461:B3E0:BD0:CB24 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)