Talk:Glucocorticoid

Treatment of sepsis

As per the sources cited in the [Sepsis|Wikipedia article for Sepsis], steroid treatment for sepsis is controversial. As such, I don't think it's advisable to have sepsis in the list of diseases treated with glucocorticoids in the article's introduction; in addition, no further mention of sepsis is made in the rest of the article. 109.102.59.248 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fc receptors

@WilliamJennings1989: Glucocorticoids very well may regulate the expression of Fc receptors in macrophages, but the source supplied (PMID 2966197) studied the affects of glucocorticoids on polymorphonuclear neutrophils, not macrophages. The affect of glucocorticoids on macrophages is controversial:

• Werb Z (1980). "Hormone receptors and normal regulation of macrophage physiological function". In van Furth R (ed.). Mononuclear phagocytes functional aspects. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. p. 825. ISBN 978-94-009-8793-7. Glucocorticoids may also decrease the number of Fc receptors on macrophages, but this immunosuppressive function is controversial because of the lack of sensitivity in Fc receptor techniques and the high concentration of glucocorticoids used in previous experiments.

Also the first line in this paragraph is problematic. The vast majority of steroids do not regulate transcription factors, hence the logic of the sentence is faulty. Glucocorticoids regulate gene expression by activation of one specific transcription factor, the glucocorticoid receptor. Boghog (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog:The source I gave supports a difference sentence, they both state how macrophages react to antibodies. It is generally unscientific when a person writes an appeal to ignorance by citing a controversy which is 35 years old. Furthermore, the downregulation of macrophage Fc receptors by is documented in guinea pigs. Contrarily, the quote above questions the physiological nature of reducing activity of the Fc receptor via glucocorticoid production.

That generalization line is not problematic because of the evolutionary relationship had by steroid receptors. I quote:

The receptors for steroid hormones are members of a superfamily of intracellular proteins that associate with cognate ligands, and in response to hormone binding, regulate the transcription factors of specific genes

Regulation is a transitive process, so it very rare that a substance will regulate no genes at all.

It is not good etiquette to delete content out of skepticism which is at least five years old. WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

References

@WilliamJennings1989: I didn't state the the proposition was true or false. Quite to the contrary, I stated that the proposition could be true, but we need a citation to support that assertion. Hence there was no appeal to ignorance. Just an appeal for a source that directly supports the statement. Per WP:V, it is not good form to include inadequately supported statements. The Ruiz citation is better, but this is still an animal study. Finally the statement since glucocorticoids are steroids, they regulate transcription factors is an association fallacy:

1. Glucocorticoids are steroids. (Mostly true, although there are exceptions such as SEGRAs.)
2. Glucocorticoids regulate transcription factors. (True, but it would be more precise to specify the transcription factor that is regulated, namely the glucocorticoid receptor.)
3. All steroids regulate transcription factors. (False)

Neurosteroids for example are a class of steroids which primarily activate cell surface receptors, not transcription factors. There is an almost infinite variety steroids, many of which have no appreciable affinity for any transcription factor (or any other biological target for that matter) at physiological or pharmacological relevant concentrations and hence are phamacodynamically inert. It is also known that glucocorticoids have rapid non-genomic effects so attributing all the effects of glucocorticoids to regulation of gene expression is an over simplification. Boghog (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The confusion may have resulted from the assumption that all steroids are steroid hormones which is not true. If the sentence were modified to read, since glucocorticoids are steroid hormones, they regulate gene transcription factors would be more correct, but still an odd statement. Also there is a slight error in the quotation from the Picard et al. paper above. It should read regulate the transcription factors of specific genes. Steroid hormone receptors may also regulate other transcription factors (e.g., via transrepression) but they themselves directly bind to DNA and hence are classified as transcription factors. Boghog (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJennings1989: Per WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are preferred over primary sources. Please note that peer review ≠ secondary. PMID 1829095 is primary while ISBN 978-94-009-8793-7 is secondary. A primary source cannot be used to debunk a high quality secondary source, even if the primary source is more recent. We need a more recent secondary source to do that. I have looked for more recent secondary sources, I cannot find any that specifically review the effects of glucocorticoids on Fc receptor function. Boghog (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: Boghog deleted the material in a misunderstanding of the text and gave ignorance as an explanatory appeal. If the proposition is most likely true, then the predicate of the sentence may be restructured to reflect that. Deletion of written material is not equivocal to requesting a citation. Hence, there is an appeal to ignorance which has now been reiterated. An unjust appeal for a source without inquiring thereof. That action was specifically in violation of WP:V section 5.2, where it is written:

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}

. Animal studies are valid means to study cell biology, this is not an issue of pharmacology or disease etiology. The statement since glucocorticoids are steroids, they regulate transcription factors is true because transcription factors are sensitively versatile and regulation is transitive. The cell must respond to almost all chemical stimuli, and the responses are chain reactions which initiate transcription through a cascade of signal transduction. That alleging of an association fallacy is mostly based on abuses of terminology:

1. Glucocorticoids are steroids by definition; and SEGRAs are defined by their capacity to bind a receptor, rather than chemical structure.
2. Steroid receptors contain DNA-binding domains which are the peptide component of transcription regulation.
3. The cellular properties of osmolarity, pH, and membrane rigidity all affect the activity of transcription factors. Hence so do non-hormonal steroids.

There is not an infinite variety of steroids, because the biochemical nomenclature references a finite set of molecular structures. The notion that ligand affinity must be "appreciable", or "physiologically or pharmacologically relevant" is a faulty proposition. The only nuance is that the activity must be biochemically measurable, so that the fact can be confirmed. If someone were to modify the sentence to add the word "hormone", rather than delete it, then there would be no cause for disagreement. Even if the sentence were to be made redundant, the information would not be hidden. The attempt to correct Picard et al. is misinformed; because DNA binding domains recognize DNA sequences as binding sites, rather than recognize specific genes. Boghog is misrepresenting the chemistry of Deoxyribonucleic acid and Protein by referring to an integral membrane receptor as a transcription factor. The steroid hormone receptors have DNA-binding factors, but those transcription factors are not equivalent to the receptor as a whole.

@Boghog: Up-to-date sources in the last 5 years are preferred, not in the last 30 years. The textbook cited is a tertiary source, and not current enough to address the question at hand. I provided more recent sources, but they were misinterpreted and treated with untrained disbelief. When a user admits being unable to find material as a reason for deletion, that user is making an appeal to ignorance.

Furthermore, these edits made by Boghog do not fulfill the public interest. They contain lapses of grammar, omission of facts, and ignorance of terminology. In this specific case, there appears to be some cover-up of the influence had by steroids on genomic DNA. The public deserves to have free access to that information, because it discourages athletes and others from using steroids as recreational drugs. Contrary action by Boghog might put people in danger.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning animal studies, please carefully read WP:MEDANIMAL. Also the source that you supplied is not exactly up-to-date either, it is 15 years old. To invalidate the statement since glucocorticoids are steroids, they regulate transcription factors, all that is needed is one example of a steroid that doesn't regulate transcription factors which I have already supplied (neurosteroids). Even if neurosteroids also regulate transcription factors through signal transduction cascades, then this would apply to almost any biologically active substance, not just steroids. Finally the assertion that I am encouraging athletes to use steroids as recreational drug is ridiculous. This discussion is about glucocorticoids, not anabolic steroids. Boghog (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: This animal study reference is consistent with WP:MEDANIMAL for the sake of "determining a mechanistic pathway". The source I posted is more up-to-date than the tricenarian, tertiary source and is used to resolve the archaic controversy there mentioned. Boghog is misinterpreting the definition of the word "regulate" to mean "affect" and the definition of the term "transcription factor" to mean "DNA-binding domain". It is true that almost all biologically active chemicals regulate the transcription of DNA, because the transcription of DNA is an extremely sensitive and dynamic process. The typical cell is engaging in this activity almost all of the time; and the process involves a decision with several thousand choices. This discussion is about the pattern of edits made in the past 96 hours, and I pointed out that lost information has some benefit to public health. Boghog has been quite defensive in response, and displays obstinate ignorance elsewhere. For the record, I find that behavior to be demonstrably suspect. Finally, the assertion that science articles should be so controversial, or prone to deletion is ridiculous.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJennings1989: We will have to agree to disagree. Not all steroids are biologically active hence it does not follow that since glucocorticoids are steroids, they must regulate gene transcription. Glucocorticoids regulate gene transcription because they activate the glucocorticoid receptor, not because they are steroids. This is already stated mechanism of action section and there is no reason to repeat it in the therapeutic immunosuppression section. No information has been lost, just healthy skepticism introduced. Both the scientific method and Wikipedia policy (WP:V) are based on skepticism. Finally, please comment on the edits and not the editors. Boghog (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: If someone wants to agree and disagree at the same time, then they should never delete someone else's words. The term "biologically inactive" is an outdated term from the era of the aforementioned tertiary source, a more current equivalent would be "waste product". Biological activity has become a much more accurate term in the past 10 years, since it was being used in an oxymoronic fashion with respect to oncology. It is now roughly conjugate with "biochemical affinity". Boghog is mistaking transactivation for gene expression. Information has been lost to deletion, and healthy skepticism is only expressed through minimal revision. For the record, scientific skepticism must be constructive, not destructive. It and the scientific method are absolutely not based on the philosophy of a 2300 year-old school of thought which "asserted nothing". On the contrary, the scientific method is based on finding truth statements, and therefore comes from empiricism. Boghog is espousing sophistry as science, and cannot differ between direct criticism and personal attacks. I am noting that information for the record, because it is unusually defensive and in violation of WP:CIV.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJennings1989:

• they should never delete someone else's words Wikipedia has a saying, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it.
• The term "biologically inactive" is an outdated term. The opposite of biological active in biologically inactive. Why is "inactive" outdated while "active" is not? This make absolutely no sense. A Google search for "biologically inactive" since 2015 produces thousands of hits. Clearly the term is not outdated.
• The result of transactivation is up-regulation of gene expression. I am not confused.
• The scientific method is inherently destructive. Hypothesis are made, critically evaluated, and only those that pass muster are promoted to the level of theory. Survival of the fittest not only applies to organisms, but also to scientific hypotheses. Boghog (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog:

• If you want to quote my sentence fragments, that only demonstrates your misunderstanding of the language.
• They are both outdated terms as per my writing, "biological activity" is so general that the opposite term is only contextual with regards to an experiment. If you want to use google web searches to justify your jargon, instead of academic papers, then the error in your methodology is apparent.
• I am glad to see you have educated yourself. I believe you still think that transcription factors are only regulated by transactivation. You have changed the subject from your assertion that a receptor and transcription factor are exactly the same thing.
• The scientific method is not inherently destructive. It is inherently creative, and the destructive aspects are only there to remove things which are not science. You lied about the philosophy of science, and do not understand the value of empiricism.

@Boghog:I am tired of arguing about this with you. So far I have provided references, and corrected your grammar or terminology. You only respond by changing the subject, lying, and otherwise violating WP:CIV. I'm done here.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJennings1989: quote on 18:57, 2 February 2016: receptor and transcription factor are exactly the same thing. I never said that. Quite to the contrary, I said on 07:24, 1 February 2016 Neurosteroids ... are a class of steroids which primarily activate cell surface receptors, not transcription factors. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) @WilliamJennings1989: I do understand nuclear receptor pharmacology, the scientific method, and Wikipedia policy. You have described my posts as "unscientific", "gave ignorance", "these edits made by Boghog do not fulfill the public interest", "Boghog is espousing sophistry as science", and "lying". I have respected WP:CIV and I respectfully submit that you have not. I am also done here. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pharmacology

This article is about how glucocorticoids work and is thus MOSTLY pharmacology. ...and yet there is a little section in the middle called “pharmacology”. This looks very poor since clearly most of the other bits including mechanism of action is squarely pharmacology. It sort of looks like writers have not really understood what pharmacology is, or have a very limited view of it. Therefore it needs to be restructured. Are there any volunteers for that? RBJ (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tables for transclusion

Does it seem like a good idea to take the table "Characteristics of Synthetic Glucocorticoids" and put it in its own article/template to then include in those individual articles? That is, the table used to exist on methylprednisolone, and instead of duplicating and updating across all the individual pages, I moved it here and added a {{see also}}. If it does make sense to refactor it out, I'd appreciate if someone could give me some assistance or point me to info on how to do it. Kimen8 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)