Talk:Thiamine

[[Category: good articles|Thiamine]]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christinewmin, Mlomanto, Kshim054, DanielPerez144. Peer reviewers: Storm1625.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Diseases

Can someone please clear up

" Well-known syndromes caused by lack of thiamine due to malnutrition or a diet high in thiaminase-rich foods include Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and beriberi, diseases also common in chronic abusers of alcohol.

"

I don't understand these two sentences. Does it mean that the diseases occur in Thiaminase deficient diets *AND* in chronic abusers of alcohol, or *JUST LIKE, AS IN* ...

bah!

It might be clearer if you recall that compounds ending in "ase" are enzymes which lyse or divide the compound listed before it. Think about penicillin and penicillinase (an enzyme made by bacteria) which prevents the PCN from working. If the diet has a lot of -ase it will break down the compound ( here thiamine) causing deficiency. Alcoholics are generally malnourished because they would rather drink than eat well.Hope this helps. Hoot 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well. Perhaps Umetaro Suzuki takes the gold for discovering B1. Or perhaps it was Casimir Funk who did it. We might even credit Christiaan Eijkman. However, it seems unlikely to credit Mr. Suzuki because his discoveries would have been well-known in Japan, and the officers running the POW camps would have augmented the prisoners' diets and saved a vast number of lives. Only a small amount of B1 is required to save a person. Obviously the Japanese Imperial forces did not know this fact, which reasonable persons should have known under similar circumstances, or they would have moved swiftly to prevent the slaughter, so I can only conclude that they did not know. If I were to say that they knew of their famous countryman's discovery and did not use it so save lives, that would be slandering Japanese officers. You can have Mr. Suzuki, or the warcamp tenders, but I do not grant you both. Choose carefuly, grasshopper. regford 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Suzuki commentary above presupposes that if: something is "known" scientifically (published and/or made known to the government), then: the government or surrogates (army) will not only "know" this, but also that public policy and public practice standards have been informed accordingly and all agents act accordingly. Seems we need some other type of argument re: Suzuki et al above. This "the Japanese officers could not have known," argument vs. Suzuki seems lacking to me at least. 72.63.48.114 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)gale

Synonym for thiamine

Someone should add to the article that 'aneurin' is another name for thiamine. 193.77.101.102 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Biotest is advertising more then it is educating.

They cite no studies to demonstrate that thiamine di(2-methylpropionate) disulfide is more easily absorbed, also absorbed doesn't mean it's biologically active. I googled the words "biologically active" thiamine, and it was "Thiamine pyrophosphate" which kept appering as the most active form of thiamine.

I think biotest is using Wiki to peddle their product, what say you?

Nutrition science news?

It's a quack "journal" advocating homeopathy. I can't see how this article can be taken seriously if NSN is cited. Man i hate chemisry.

Coenzyme or cofactor?

This page says that TPP is a coenzyme, but I've read that it is in fact a cofactor of pyruvate dehydrogenase, and a coenzyme of transketolase. I'm confused. Anyone have any ideas?

In both cases, the term "coenzyme" seems the most appropiate.

You are right. It is a prosthetic group. --kupirijo (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes and Thiamine testing

I don't feel qualified to try to incorporate this, but here's an article describing research which found that diabetics tend to be significantly thiamine deficient, which may in fact cause many of the serious symptoms of diabetes.

The article also says that transketolase may not be a good diagnostic tool, but I could be misreading that. Blurble 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

History of vitamins....

I hope someone more wiki-skilled than I will incorporate things drawn from....

http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/vitamin_b1/eijkman.html

.. and similar into this page about thiamine.

I understand from a BBC TV program that Carol Vordeman's great-grandfather Vorderman (I think the absent/ extra "r" are correct) was chief medical officer for the whole "Dutch East Indies" (today's Indonesia)... and noticed the link between beriberi and white (polished) vs brown rice.... a difference that was especially important to prisoners, who ate white rice... and died... in their millions...

Supposedly the current head of the Eijkman institute... named for the man who got the Nobel prize for "discovering" B1 has said that Vorderman should have shared that prize.

Tkbwik 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reviewing and thiamine is not an amine so this is why it is also known as thiamin. A move away from confusing and false nomenclature (thiamine) to thiamin makes sense to me, more sense then continuing with a historical naming error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Template:Reflist-talk

New article request (genetic diseases section of article)

I would say that if this particular section becomes too long, then one could make a new article, but the suggested name seems a bit too long. It might make sense to eventually make an article with a name something like "Genetic diseases of thyamin metabolism," but right now there doesn't seem to be enough material for that. Someone else would just come along and want to merge it back into this article.
WriterHound (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No mentioning of "function" of thiamine?

There's only a sentence in the lede that says it's "essential for neural function and carbohydrate metabolism", which is pretty vague.

This page, I believe, provides the primary information needed, and I will try to incorporate some of the information into the article if no one else gets there before I had the time to do so.Keith Galveston (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Elliott: Thanks for that; I was looking for the role of thiamin in human metabolism when I pulled up this article. I'll see if I understand what's linked here, and create a sub-stub once I've grokked it. (edit) oooo, page not found. The search continues....

Recent Edits

I welcome discussion/improvements to the material I added. Is it OK to use Google Scholar as a general reference to support overview statements instead of attempting to select specific references that appeal to my POV?shbrown (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thiamin(e)?

Is there any consensus about how the name of the compound should be spelled in the article? Both "Thiamine" and "Thiamin" are used right now. It's confusing. (Google returns some 2,210,000 results for "Thiamin" and some 3,160,000 results for "Thiamine", if it's worth anything.) Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just came here to express the same concern. Google counts are worth something, but those are too close to be meaningful. The article title is Thiamin, which is also worth something, but not definitive. My spellchecker want to go with "thiamine", FWIW. Is there some chemists convention where "thiamine" is used in some special case? If so someone should come and fix that. Right now I see "thiamine deficiency" in one paragraph and "thiamin deficiency" in another. I am changing all to "thiamine".  Randall Bart   Talk  22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be called "thiamine". See the History section of the article for the rationale. It contains an amino group, i.e., an amine, so one would logically expect the English spelling to be "thiamine". The scientific papers and publications used as references in the article appear to use "thiamine" more often than "thiamin". (Incidentally, the spelling checker in the Linux-based browser I am using to write this comment prefers "thiamine".) I'd recommend changing all instances of "thiamin" to "thiamine", except where it appears in a reference title or direct quote from a reference source, speedy deletion of the Thiamine redirect, and moving Thiamin to Thiamine. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be called "thiamine" as it contain an amine function. Furthermore, I recommend that thiamine phosphate derivatives be abbreviated ThMP, ThDP, ThTP... as the abbreviations often used, even in the scientific literature, TMP, TDP and TTP are already the official abbreviations of the thymidine phosphate esters thymidine monophosphate, thymidine diphophate...Lulubou (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thiamine" seems to be the more common spelling compared to "thiamin" in both the scientific literature and in common use. The consensus here seems to be to move the article back to "thiamine", so I have done so. I have also switched to a consistent use of "thiamine" throughout the article. There were cases where the spelling switched between the two spelling variations within the same sentence. ChemNerd (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As evidence to support the recent move from thiamin to thiamine, I searched ISI Web of Knowledge:

• "thiamin": 5013 results
• "thiamine": 19,216

Good move

Ben (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Google search returns are hardly an accurate measure of what is right and does NOT indicate proper usage of thiamin/thiamine. To quickly resolve this “confusion”: Thiamin is the US or "American" spelling while thiamine is the British or European spelling. Thiamin, aka "Vitamin B1," is the proper way to spell it in America.

http://spelling.org/free/instructional/british_vs_american_spelling.htm http://www.healthline.com/sw/sns-thiamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanRutenberg (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The British government spells it "thiamin."[1]

Let's look at official (edit: US) government websites.

• "thiamin": 16,300 results[2]
• "thiamine": 48,700 results[3]

And yet, "thiamin" is how it's spelled on all US nutrition labels, which is the most prominent place where it's ever spelled.

British government websites:

• "thiamin": 3,150 results[4]
• "thiamine": 827 results[5]

The UK doesn't enforce a uniform label the way the US does, but here's a label for British baby food (the only label I could find that included vitamins) and it's spelled "thiamin":[6]. I'm pretty sure most people know of thiamin primarily from food labeling, so I would argue for changing the name to what people are most familiar with, since both US and UK governments are at least ok with either spelling, regardless of which may be preferred. 67.100.126.137 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to an article that attempts in brief to address this exact issue in the introduction[7]. The argument is that the e was dropped when it was discovered that thiamin is in fact, not, an amine. It is therefore stated the thiamine is an archaic spelling that is gradually falling out of use. With this in mind, perhaps it would be best to revert the article title and all instances within the article to thiamin? Annicorn (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with these latest comments in support of thiamin (without the e). In addition, the recent authoritative history of thiamin -- Kenneth Carpenter's "Beriberi, White Rice, and Vitamin B" (University of California Press, 2000) -- states (p. 113) that thiamin is the correct modern spelling, and notes that the older spelling "thiamine" is gradually being abandoned. We also find "thiamin" uniquely in/on 1. the USDA website; 2. the NIH website; and 3. Wardlaw's standard textbook Perspectives on Nutrition, 4th edition. I think it's pretty clear that although both spellings are permissible, "thiamin" should be preferred as more contemporary and accepted by specialists. Will someone please now make the necessary change? Ajrocke (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ajrocke, thank you for the source. Dr. Carpenter is definitely an authority. He writes for the Nobel Prize committee and Britannica. I hope he also writes for Wikipedia. 😃 Thiamin is the modern spelling. At first I thought it was a UK/US difference but UK NHS also spells it thiamin. We will move the article, Template:Ping willing. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This move requires an administrator so is waiting for Doc James. It's a fairly involved operation to change every occurrence and sub-article. I have changed the spelling in this article, and kept the archaic form in the titles of citations and in quotations. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing consensus for a move. Please open a WP:RM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2010 tallies of spelling on U.S. and British government websites was, I think, quite useful, notwithstanding the general caution required around search engine tests. (It would be worthwhile to update those tallies every decade or so, I suspect.)

I suggest that if there's any validity to the claims made above about the history of usage of the different spellings, that they be included in the article, along with a note about regional preferences.

—DIV (49.179.81.96 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

Adding content to an old discussion (started 2008, last prior contribution 2018) is unlikely to be seen by other editors. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thiamine Chemical Formula

Thiamine is listed in this page as having a chemical formula of C12-H17-N4-O-S, which gives a molecular weight of 265.31. This is the thiamine cation however. "Thiamine" is listed in both the Merck Index as well as the United States National Library of Medicine has having a molecular formula of C12-H17-N4-O-S.Cl, which includes the chloride anion ([8]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anemone13 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Formula listed today (22-Nov-2013, Melbourne Australia time) has Cl in it, but there is no Cl in the structure provided in Wikipedia. Need to be consistent. Can anybody add what the state of thiamine is for the purposes of reporting nutritional values in food, ie infant formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.183.180 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thiamine Mononitrate

Thiamine Mononitrate is the form of thiamine I see listed in supplement ingredients, how come it only gets a passing mention in the article? What other bio-active forms are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.224.10 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The mononitrate part of the molecule is for stability when thiamine is added to food or an ingredient in a supplement. It separates during digestion and is not part of what is absorbed as thiamine. For some vitamins and essential minerals there are heated debates as to whether the accessory part of the compound aids or hinders absorption, but I do not believe that applies to thiamine. David notMD (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Exact mass?

It might make sense to calculate an exact mass for biomolecules using the lightest and most common of the nuclides to do it. This would then be the most common peak in mass spectrometry. It is a nine significant digit number since we know the atomic weights of the various nuclides to that accuracy. However, real samples will have a mean molecular weight accurate to less than 6 sig digit certainty, due to natural variations in C-12/C-13 ratios and so forth, depending on the source of the molecule (this is how testosterne doping is detected in sports, for example). If we put "exact masses" in these articles to 9 digits, we should make it clear how they are calculated by assuming the most common nuclides for each atomic species. That isn't a given-- for assuming most common nuclide isn't part of the definition of "exact mass" for molecules (for example, a molecule of thiamine which appened to contain an atom of C-13 would have quite a different exact mass than the one you see here). So there needs to be a footnote and caveat, to the effect that this is the assumption made for these figures for any molecule, and particularly biomolecules. SBHarris 16:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Need a photo of the stuff

Can we get a picture of it on here? Warpzero 05:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we should have one. It's an uninteresting-looking white powder, but we have plenty of photos of white powders in chem articles. SBHarris 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to G6P Dehydrogenase

I always thought that thiamine as a cofactor for G6PD was an essential part of understanding the necessity of replacing thiamine with dextrose infusion in alcoholics. This seemed to be common knowledge in the 20th century. What happened? doctorwolfie (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thiamine is used in the biosynthesis of the neurotransmitters acetylcholine and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)"

I've removed this sentence since thiamine does not participate directly in these syntheses. The thiamine derivative TPP is used as a cofactor in the citric acid cycle and acetyl CoA production to produce acetyl-CoA and alpha-ketoglutarate(which can be converted to glutamate). Acetyl-CoA is used in the synthesis of acetylcholine, and glutamate is a precursor to GABA, so decrease of thiamine does lead to decrease in these neurotransmitters... But it also leads to a decrease in the synthesis of a whole lot of things due to the fact that acetyl-CoA production and the citric acid cycle are so central to metabolism in general.TypingAway (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intakes

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all B vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale is covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Value, using it on food and dietary supplement labels as %DV, last revised in May 2016. What I have written can be improved. It lacks EFSA or other major country RDAs. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Food and supplement labeling for Daily Values will confusing for several years. The entire Facts panel was revised May 2016, but companies have until July 28, 2018 to be compliance with the change (small companies, a year longer). This means that products will be for sale with old or new %DV determinations.David notMD (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede

My intention in removing the two sentences about cost of product is that those apply only to injectable, prescription product. In my opinion, most people visiting this entry are thinking about the vitamin as an oral product. Either the two sentences should be modified to be clearer about injectable, or deleted (my preference). Secondly, the sentence about some countries adding thiamine to grains is vague. The sentence I added - since deleted - provides more detail about the amount of fortification in the United States. Information could be added about other countries. This reference could be added. Again, in my opinion that would make for a stronger lede.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=137.165

David notMD (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Injectable vitamin products are commonly used for many indications. They are the recommended treatment for alcoholic induced thiamine deficiency at least initially.

Clarified that the second bit was about by mouth while the first is a vial which can be taken by mouth but also by injection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We are still at cross purposes, but I do not know how to resolve it. Food/supplement grade thiamine HCL or thiamine mononitrate is priced at $.20 to $1.00 per gram, depending on which compound and amount. Given 100% DV (U.S.) is 1.2 mg/day, a month's supply costs just pennies. I am still of the opinion that having two sentences about cost here (and in the riboflavin entry) serve no benefit. David notMD (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Added text to differentiate between food/supplement grade and medical products. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you repeated "often by intravenous or intramuscular injection, but also orally" in paragraph 3 of the lead when paragraph 1 already says "It is taken by mouth or by injection."?

Which ref supports "used as an ingredient in food fortification and dietary supplements at an ingredient cost of pennies per day"? I am not seeing that in the AHFS source. We can add it we just need a source and it should likely go with the existing sentence on fortification.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why have pricing information?

In looking at the leads for all of the vitamins, most have no mention of cost. Would these articles be better if none mentioned cost? Or if all used the same source? Vitamin C states 3-7 cents per 100 mg tablet, referenced to: International Drug Price Indicator Guide. Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA. 2016. Folate and Vitamin B1 cite the same source, but the hyperlinks do not work. Vitamins B1 and B2 reference a text without a hyperlink [Hamilton, Richart (2015). Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia 2015 Deluxe Lab-Coat Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 230. ISBN 9781284057560.] which appears to apply to hospital prescription pricing, as the costs are far higher than vitamin supplement pricing. My preference is for no mention of cost. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

How much medications cost, especially those on the WHO List of Essential Medicines is important with respect to global health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The WHO List has only nine nutrients, and no cost per dose information. The vitamin C article is the only one with a functioning link to a cost. Link is http://mshpriceguide.org/en/single-drug-information/?DMFId=830&searchYear=2015. Changing the 830 to 821 gets working link to vitamin B1, to 827 gets B6. This MSH Price Guide does not have much more in the way of cost per day. Again, given paucity of on line information, my opinion is to still list nothing for any nutrient. More to the point, providing a hospital pharmacy charge for a nutrient has no relevance for a person who is looking at the article and wondering how much the nutrient would cost at a retail pharmacy. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

All the pricing information is well referenced. As medicines vary in price by more than a 100 million times yes the rough price of medicines is useful. Is the med around one USD, 10 USD, 100 USD, 10,000 USD etc? Also we are not just writing for potential patients by also hospital admin and health systems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but am not going to change any of the vitamin articles. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We had a big discussion at WT:MED about this a year or two ago. IMO price is an important dimension of a medication. The price of hepatitis C meds for example are notable. This often determines whether or not a medication can be found in a country and whether or not a person is able to get the treatment in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thiamin is a vitamin

Hello. User:Doc James undid all of my changes and not for the better. The first paragraph should be about the vitamin. This is first and foremost what thiamine is. You are welcome to discuss supplements later on. I do not want to participate in a conversation about this. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thiamine is both a vitamin and a supplement and the first sentence should mention this.

Have mentioned the sources as the second sentence. Its use as a supplement is important.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The function of the substance must be established first, before stating signs of its deficiencies. I am going to try again. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is very important as a supplement. I disagree with the changes that de emphasizes this importance.

This article is also about thiamine not thiamine deficiency. Thus mentioning that thiamine deficiency is rare in the USA before even discussing that thiamine is used to treat the condition is strange.

And why are we discussing how common thiamine deficiency is in the lead of this article? What about other countries or globally?

Bunch of the additions such as "It functions as a cofactor for five enzymes involved in glucose, amino acid, and lipid metabolism, and is involved in membrane and nerve conduction." are also unreferenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:OdMy time for Wikipedia is extremely limited right now. You're right about sourcing functions. And I agree, prevalence shouldn't be stated in terms of a US-centric source.

Still this article's lead is unbecoming of an M.D. The first paragraph ends, "It is taken by mouth or by injection." Detail belongs in the article prose. All three of these statements belong in prose and not in the lead:

• It is taken by mouth or by injection.
• Side effects are generally few.
• Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, may occur.

In my country, people are encouraged to get most of their nutrients from food. Britannica says, "In Western countries, thiamin deficiency is encountered almost solely in cases of chronic alcoholism." Maple syrup urine disease occurs in 1 in 185,000 births. That means subordinate them to the main topic which is essential to everyone. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of side effects are just an important as effects.

We use easier to understand language per WP:MEDMOS

This "that functions in the nervous system" implies that it only needed in the CNS which is not true.

Also not a big fan of the one sentence paragraph you created in the lead.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What was wrong with this? "Some countries require its addition to certain foods such as grains." Only required of a few vitamins / substances. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Side question. Going by Wikipedia, why is it so important to you to list a sequela of Wernicke's encephalopathy in the first paragraph of a lead about thiamine? If Wikipedia is in error, then perhaps you would fix the article Wernicke–Korsakoff_syndrome. More later. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Sure Wernicke–Korsakoff_syndrome needs work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Restating my question. Why do you insist on listing Korsakoff psychosis in the first paragraph of the lead of this article about thiamine? Apparently Korsakoff psychosis is a late complication of persistent Wernicke encephalopathy.... -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is a good point and have adjusted per the ref.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Better source?

Why is this not a good enough source? "American Society of Health-System Pharmacists" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

When I updated the Drugs.com reference to a live url, I checked every statement that it sourced. These two statements are not present in Drugs.com or in the NIH factsheet. I take issue with User:Doc James reverting my verification tags, and then not fixing the problem. I have re-added those tags.

• "Side effects of thiamine supplements are generally few."

If you're going to characterize the quantity of possible side effects, you will need a source that gives an assessment of the quantity. The source does not do that. https://www.drugs.com/monograph/thiamine-hydrochloride.html Then you added a quote that characterizes the toxicity. Toxicity is a separate attribute. "quote = Relatively nontoxic"

• "Thiamine is an essential nutrient, as people are unable to make it."

https://web.archive.org/web/20161230231520/https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/ I would love to see a source actually say that people can't make thiamin. But this one does not say that. Nor does the previous source you gave. Neither one actually says thiamin is an essential nutrient either. https://www.drugs.com/monograph/thiamine-hydrochloride.html -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay so is thiamine an "essential nutrient"? This ref says "inadequate intakes of essential nutrients, including thiamin"[10]

Second part, can humans made it internally?

"Thiamine (vitamin B1) is synthesized only in bacteria, fungi, and plants but is an essential nutrient for animals."[11]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right NIH did say thiamin is an essential nutrient. My apologies for reading only the part about alcohol abuse where they said so. Why didn't you reply to the first part of my comments? I shouldn't have to repeat a request for correction. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The ref says "Relatively nontoxic"[12]

This supports "Side effects of thiamine supplements are generally minimal"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can't really believe that an expression of quantity ("few" now changed to "minimal") equates to an expression of toxicity ("Relatively nontoxic"). I will need to seek an outside opinion if you can't understand the difference. Would you prefer that I follow up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:Third opinion, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"few" and "minimal" equates to "relatively non" ie relatively nontoxic. So yes it was fine and yes you are welcome to request further opinions.

This is not a controversial statement and we have lots of potential sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Can:

a) "Relatively nontoxic"[13]

be reasonably summarized as

b) "Side effects of thiamine supplements are generally minimal"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

seems reasonable, would agree with "b"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We also have this ref that says the same sort of thing using different language.[14]

"There are no reports of adverse effects..." except some when used by injection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't choice A speak to the direct effects of Thiamine while choice B addresses its side effects instead? I think there's a difference there. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Its fine. There are few adverse effects of thiamine when used as a supplement- this is what the source says. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:SusanLesch i just reviewed the changes to this page. It seems that you are concerned about what happens when people take too much - is that the issue? We could easily add something on that. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Template:Ping Thanks for asking. No I'm not worried about people taking too much. "Thiamin has not been shown to cause any harm." But I do worry when the English language gets thrown out the window. "are generally minimal" used to say "are generally few". Both are characterizations of quantity. (Like big, or a lot, or none.) We do not have the right to equate measures of quantity with measures of toxicity (the given source only specifically addressed the latter). Now James has added a new source which isn't great but it is acceptable. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I dislike the phrase "relatively nontoxic". "Nontoxic" should be a binary situation; either a chemical is nontoxic or it is not nontoxic. The source should have stated something like "relatively low toxicity".

SusanLesch argues that "generally few" and "generally minimal" are characterizations of quantity. This is correct. However, use of the word "relatively" in the phrase "relatively nontoxic" implies that this phrase is also a characterization of quantity. On the other hand, "nontoxic" is not suitable as a quantitative adjective. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Would "Thiamine supplements are generally well tolerated." be better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "generally well tolerated".JenOttawa (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists is a better source than Mayo and per this discussion supported the text. I thus restored that source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. This discussion didn't establish any opinion on ASHP/Drugs.com as a source. You just kept changing the wording until it wasn't objectionable. Why on earth would I agree that ASHP is any better than the Mayo Clinic? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

AHFS is a perfectly suitable source. Thus restoring it. Not seeing consensus that AHFS is not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We use AHFS on many MANY articles; it is MEDRS. Mayo and other university/hospital websites are not MEDRS. This was considered at WT:MEDRS a long time ago and ruled out there. The reason is that these cites are very uneven, are not peer reviewed, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, Doc James. I will use the WT:MEDRS archive in the future. Thank you very much, Jytdog. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Injection being prescription

Which source supports this? Also what is prescription or not is very jurisdictional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Medication" is usually given by injection? Really. What reference supports that User:Iztwoz? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Doc James Both queried items are from the ref i gave after your earlier query - in the Prescription products sections of the paper. If there's an alternative interpretation that i'm ignorant of please enlighten.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are referring to this ref[15]?

We often prescribe oral thiamine. The ref in question does not say that prescriptions are usually injections.

It just lists some prescription products by over the counter stuff can be prescribed.

Prescription does not equal only medication as over-the-counter is also medication. Also you will notice the products are tagged with a country logo as these distinction on country specific. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My issue with the original wording: "Supplements and over-the-counter drugs are mostly taken by mouth, and most prescription drugs are given by injection." is that it is overly detailed for the lead and specific to certain countries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Doc James the ref clearly outlines the generic medications all listed as injection given, and the over the counter as oral bar one. This is the same for both countries tagged. I take your point that it's overly detailed for lead, but i think i added it there to avoid a gloss-over; and I hadn't noticed the country tag. I took it to mean that higher doses would be by injection. Also over the counter drugs in UK include the lower doses that can also be prescribed. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone has deleted the offending sentence. In any case, I also dispute the claim that "most prescription drugs are given by injection". Over-the-counter drugs can also be prescribed. The reference does not state the number of prescriptions of each form.

As an aside, the reference states that one formulation of thiamine hydrochloride IM/IV injection (David Bull Laboratories) is available over the counter. I am pretty sure that IM/IV preparations are not available over the counter in the UK. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Blurring the lines

There is confusion on the page in the refs to supplements and drugs. From the page Dietary supplements - supplements are always taken orally. There is no governmental control on the manufacture of supplements. Drugs are manufactured clearly with control. The sentence that was reverted about the vitamin being found in food and also manufactured as a supplement or medication made things a lot clearer. Both are extensive and separate industries/manufacturers. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Have adjusted to "They are typically taken by mouth, but may also be given by intravenous or intramuscular injection." We already "mention supplements and medicines" in the prior two sentences so would apply in this one.

Do people use injectable thiamine supplements? Yes in alt med treatments. User:Iztwoz does that address your concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But - I still think the addition of 'manufactured for use' a better point of clarification. I might make some further changes which of course you may revert.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Please note that support for a move by the editor proposing the change is implied, so it is not generally required to list support on a separate line in a move request that you have initiated. I have created redirects from all of the proposed titles to the current article locations. Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Thiamine → ThiaminThiamin
• Thiamine deficiency → Thiamin deficiencyThiamin deficiency
• Thiamine-phosphate kinase → Thiamin-phosphate kinaseThiamin-phosphate kinase
• Thiamine diphosphokinase → Thiamin diphosphokinaseThiamin diphosphokinase
• Adenosine thiamine diphosphate → Adenosine thiamin diphosphateAdenosine thiamin diphosphate

– Thiamin is the modern spelling. Sub-articles will also need to move.

• Thiamine and vitamine were originally thought to be amines but neither is. The "e" in vitamin was dropped, and the "e" in thiamin is being dropped. Template:Catalog lookup link
• Dr. Kenneth Carpenter, a vitamin expert who has written for Britannica and the Nobel Prize committee (Nobel Media AB), wrote that thiamine is fading out and thiamin is the modern spelling.
• Both UK NHS and US NIH spell it thiamin illustrating that this is not a UK vs. US spelling problem. SusanLesch (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - in 2009 the consensus (Thiamin(e) ?) was to move name to thiamine as it was the most commonly used name. That is still the case. The use of name comes down to choice not to any mandate. Carpenter's book referred to is of 2000 and to have stated that the use of 'thiamine' was fading out has clearly proven otherwise. Ngrams show double the usage of thiamine. Google hits give 5,150,000 for thiamine and 3,830,000 for thiamin. NIH the US site does use 'thiamin' but does state or 'thiamine'; also on its GARD page the choice is 'thiamine'. WHO prefers the use of 'thiamine' used 110 times in Guidelines ref on entry page. NICE.org.UK prefers 'thiamine'.and the use of all other terms including thiamine hydrochloride usually uses the name thiamine. It would still seem to be the commonly used name. To say that the original name was thiamine and the 'e' was dropped is not supported by the Nobel Prize literature which states that from its discovery in 1926 it was called 'thiamin' and in papers from the 1950s thiamine was used.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Question Iztwoz, thank you for your comments. Where does the Nobel literature for Eijkman or anybody else discuss the spelling? -SusanLesch

It isn't discussed anywhere just stated (on the page you provide) that the vitamin was called 'thiamin'. On anther page it lists the later 1950s publications after the earlier refs to 'thiamin'.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the other info - --Iztwoz (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nobel Media doesn't seem to be relevant (I counted two of each spelling in your search link.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WHO and FAO use thiamine.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The three best textbooks I can find including Doc James's source for vitamin B3 all spell it thiamin:

• Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease
• Biochemical, Physiological, and Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition
• Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iztwoz and DocJames. Authoritative sources still use this spelling, and it is used more commonly than alternate spellings. Suggest renominate in a decade when use WP:COMMONNAME may finally reflect this spelling. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Respecting the canon is more my cup of tea. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. WP:COMMONNAME still exists, right? Red Slash 11:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Red Slash if you look at Ngram viwer thiamine is still more common than thiamin.[17] In fact it has been more common since the 1950s. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no need to put on airs, sort of like in America, Guthrie Theat-re or ye olde thiamine. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Umm, it was thiamin that was most common before the 1950s. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Template:Ping, that Ngram tool is cool, thanks. Merck published The Story of Vitamin B1 in 1937, spelling it thiamin. Robert R. Williams was the biochemist who first synthesized thiamin. He called it vitamin B1 but he wrote in 1938, "The Chemistry and Biological Significance of Thiamin" (Science 24 Jun 1938: Vol. 87, Issue 2269, pp. 559-563 DOI: 10.1126/science.87.2269.559). So it started out thiamin, thiamine outnumbered that by around 1950 as you say, and nowadays the authorities spell it thiamin. If the majority wins per Ngram I have no choice but to concede. This does not change the fact that the three best textbooks on the market all use thiamin. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Case not made. Thiamine appears to predominate. Wikipedia follows, it doesn’t lead. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hold on a minute. The original name was thiamin. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Template:Ping, sorry but we need to take this Ngram tool into the shop. It seems to be very spotty. For example, here I asked for "vitamin B1" and "thiamin". It couldn't find vitamin B1 -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Search terms don't go in quotes on Google Ngrams, for some reason: B1 included. Dekimasuよ! 17:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page number

This ref was added http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guide_food_fortification_micronutrients.pdf

The document is more than 300 pages. Which page supports the text in question?

"Refined grains lose much of their thiamine and in many countries cereals and flours are enriched with thiamine."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Template:Reflist-talk

Done --Iztwoz (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 5a goals

Elaborate upon the importance of thiamine in pregnancy and explain why pregnant/lactating women have higher DRIs. Discuss the consequence(s) of thiamine deficiency in pregnant women, newborns, lactating women, and breastfeeding infants.

Mlomanto (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 5c Peer Review of Group 5b

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The article mainly expands upon thiamine as prenatal nutrition, specifically the reason for increased intake in pregnant and nursing women. The lead section appears easy to understand and the structure is somewhat clear as it touches upon pregnant women, pregnant women with a comorbid condition, and finally lactating women. The rest of the edits appear to be contributing, though minor (e.g. definitions, function clarifications, some side effects). The articles cited are from reliable sources, most are accessible, but some requires to be purchased for the full version (such as #19 and #36)

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has elaborated on why pregnant and lactating women have higher DRIs including common doses of thiamine in prenatal vitamins. However, the consequences of thiamine deficiencies in the demographics listed in the goals were not clarified. The group added a new subheading under “Medical Uses” titled “Prenatal supplementation,” which elaborates on the importance of thiamine supplementation in pregnancy. Under this subheading, the group used freely accessible publications that support their statements regarding the importance of thiamine in these populations and consequences of thiamine deficiency in infants. More information could be added on the effects of thiamine deficiency in pregnant/lactating women.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...

The sources used by the group are mostly secondary literature that are freely accessible to the public and are supportive of their statements. Vicknguy (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify...

The edits have clear structure. A new section about thiamine as a prenatal supplement was created which makes it easier for readers to find and understand this information. All other sections are also organized in a logical order. Msleee (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

5. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? If not, specify…

The first two goals were discussed, but the third was not as much outside of thiamine function and importance (or at least the edits are not showing up for me). Also, under the prenatal supplementation section: “Women who are pregnant or lactating require more thiamine. In pregnancy, this increased is likely due to [...].” Did you mean ‘increase’ or ‘increased need’? Snselim (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations, claims are sourced and cited appropriately. Storm1625 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comments! I have attempted to address any concerns brought up in this review.

• Regarding references 19 and 36 not being freely available, the information used from reference 19 can be found in the freely available abstract. I have not personally had any issues accessing reference 36.
  
• Thank you for pointing out that I had not fully completed my last goal. had only explicitly addressed the consequences of thiamine deficiency in newborns and infant development. I have now clarified that the consequences of thiamine deficiency are not different in pregnant/lactating women, but they have an increased risk of developing these conditions.
  
• I have also fixed the typo and changed the sentence under the prenatal supplementation section to read “Women who are pregnant or lactating require more thiamine. In pregnancy, this increased need is likely due to [...].” Mlomanto (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

FDA terms AI and UL?

FDA(?) acronyms AI and UL are used without explanation. Average intake and Upper limit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.154.105 (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

prodrugs

Benfotiamine and sulbutiamine as nutraceutical thiamine prodrugs may warrant mention in supplementation/uses. Deferring to other editors. SloppyTots (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Benfotiamine and Sulbutiamine exist as articles, as does Fursultiamine. All are synthetic derivatives of thiamine, with claims for superior bioavailability. Approved as drug or dietary supplement in some countries. Clinical trial evidence appears to be thin. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Thiamine, as it exists on 31 January 2022, has a high content match with https://med.libretexts.org/LibreTexts/American_River_College/General_Nutrition_Textbook_(not_Plant-Based)-_reference_for_NUTRI_303_(Hagenburger)/7%3A_Vitamins/7.3%3A_Water_Soluble_Vitamins/Vitamin_B1. Thus, registering as a copyright violation. Medicine LibreTexts appears to be a site that copies Wikipedia articles. At its article: "Vitamin B1 (Thiamine) Last updated Aug 14, 2020", it does not acknowledge being copied from Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

GA nomination

Beginning review for GA nomination. Starting with reviewing all refs that are available online. Sections will be retitled and ordered to align with other vitamin articles that are GA. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominated on 16 July 2022. Intention is to do some more work prior to review. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thiamin versus Thiamine, revisited

Another way to look at this question is asking what is the preferred spelling in science journal articles. A quickie look at articles listed at the National Library of Medicine search site PubMed showed a preference for thiamine. Unfortunately, trying to search on the two spellings yielded 19,066 articles for both, meaning that PubMed sees both as one search term. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)