Talk:Mannose

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology

	This 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mannose/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

the article Mannose is pretty bad. I don't know where to start. Any carbohydrate chemist could write an article, assisted by (I hope) an immunologist. I was somewhat surprised, because generally Wikipedia articles about ANY molecule are just great. Richard8081 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Article is incomplete

I can't tell from this article:

(1) Do people need mannose in their diet? Does it occur in foods? Are there many sources for mannose?

(2) Can mannose be absorbed into the bloodstream in the gut? Is it broken down from other carbohydrates in the gut?

(3) Can mannose be produced by cells (other than in the gut)? From what precursors, and where?

The "metabolism" section is too technical and it buries these interesting headline points, or omits them. I also couldn't find this information on the net, only a google wall of advertising explainers for mannose. I'm trying to figure out why mannose (and xylose) is not included in the frequently-cited list "glucose-fructose-galactose".

Compare it for example to the article on glycogen. The current article treats mannose mainly as a molecule; the article on glycogen gives the biological context and the human utility as well, and in plainer language. (Of course glycogen is more important, but still.)

178.39.122.125 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the lede to answer (1)-(3) partially. My source is http://www.nutrientsreview.com/carbs/monosaccharides-mannose.html. The source appears to be excellent and clear, and it's not an alternative medicine advertising site. It has other information that could be imported into this article. It lists 15 sources; you have to click on "References" to see them.

178.39.122.125 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated studies

While I appreciate the need to avoid false or unreliable sources, it seems that the Springer-published, peer-reviewed World Journal of Urology has been suggested as a primary source (certainly by Edgar181). I don't believe this is updated. The authors of the paper showing effectiveness of Mannose for recurrent UTI in a Randomized controlled trial ^[1] are very carefull to say that one RCT success isn't sufficient to justify a broadbrush claim stating We believe that D-mannose may be a useful agent for the prevention of recurrent UTIs but further clinical trials will be necessary. (in their associated commentary at DOI: 10.1111/bju.12492)

I note that these papers were published after much of the discussion on this talk page about the veracity of the scientific claims.

References

^ Kranjčec, Bojana; Papeš, Dino; Altarac, Silvio (2013). "d-mannose powder for prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: a randomized clinical trial". World Journal of Urology. 32 (1): 79–84. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1091-6. ISSN 0724-4983.

Jpmaytum (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, medical information should be supported by secondary sources, rather than primary sources (see WP:MEDRS for details). That's why I added the {{npsn}} template to the comment about urinary tract infections. Do you know if there is any review article/literature review that covers the research regarding mannose and UTIs? That would be the ideal kind of source to use to support the "Therapeutic potential" section. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[KranjčecPapeš2013-1] Kranjčec, Bojana; Papeš, Dino; Altarac, Silvio (2013). "d-mannose powder for prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: a randomized clinical trial". World Journal of Urology. 32 (1): 79–84. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1091-6. ISSN 0724-4983.

[1]