Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin K/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Too much vitamin k ?

This is not really a problem. Vitamin K is a cofactor - excess levels do not increase thrombosis risk as such. Only too little (such as in malabsorption of breastfeeding babies) may lead to a coagulopathy. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone who understands the issues might want to add something on the issue of interferance with warfarin . See issues with Anlene milk powder[1]
Better link[2]. This is completely reasonable, although I think using vitamin K for bone health is unproven bunk. JFW | T@lk 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? Lots of recent clinical data support it. Vitamin K, and particularly K2, seems to move calcium into the bones. 1,25D3 only moves it into the bloodstream. K2 helps with both CHD and osteoporosis. It exerts certain effects that K1 does not in this area, and is not inhibited by salicylates. --Ryan Wise (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Pubmed search. JFW | T@lk 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't have the journal references handy, but I ran into one article which did a trial of *K1* supplementation and did not find a correlation with bone density. But another (more recent) article found was a trial of K2 supplementation did affect bone density. There is also an association found between bone density and/or osteoporosis rates (forget which), and vitamin K level, although which way that correlation goes, and why, wasn't clear to the researchers as I recall from the article. It's been a while since I looked into the vitamin K lit (pulling up stuff for autism research..)


As a patient taking Marcomar (the Swiss equivalent of Warfarin), I suggest being careful about advice in this area. All the doctors I have seen have stressed to NOT CHANGE YOUR NORMAL DIET. They did suggest that eating a large amount (plate full) of cabbage or brussel sprouts wouldn't be clever, but, eating these high % foods shouldn't be a problem in 'normal' portions. The reason for this seems to be the fact that these Anticoagulant drugs act very slowly meaning it is really difficult to establish the correct dose. If you couple the dosage issue with a situation where the patient also changes diet in a significant way, then you have a danger that the blood thins too much or more than expected leading to a danager of bleeding and haemorages. Therefore, my doctors are saying don't change your diet, adjust the drug dose to fit with your normal eating habits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.246.4.6 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this article in regards to k2 and warfarin. [3] Of note, it's slowly emerging that since salicylates work by inhibiting K1 that they actually lead to more heart attacks down the line. --Ryan Wise (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 May 2009
Agree. Olbenberg notes this too in his article on vitamin K PMID|18374189 notes that a small supplemtary dose of vitamin K seems to stabilize the K cycle against disruptions caused by mutations which affect warfarin activity.


Why "K"

All the othervitamins go in alphabetical order: A, B, C, D, E, why "Vitamin K"? Why not vitamin F? --Munchkinguy 19:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the scientist who discovered this antihaemorrhagic vitamin in 1935 was Danish, and called it Koagulation (coagulation) vitamin. JFW | T@lk 22:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also the naming of different B vitamins and other substances had originally been named F,G,H,I e.t.c when they were first discovered but through the years they either adopted another name or have been removed from the vitamin group in general so there are empty positions, the same holds true for "missing" numbers in the B complex. 89.133.150.230 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangers?

Italic text Hey. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.75.7 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

With oral vit. K doses available as a safer alternative, and knowing the risks of injections (contaminants, autoimmune diseases, anaphilaxis, nerve injury, etc.) I totally don’t understand this injection craze. It must be a iatrogenic strategy to ensure a constant flow of patients in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.245 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Slang

I've taken the liberty of revamping the slang section about "vitamin K" as slang for ketamine; the term is in common use and important. The old version stated that ketamine was Schedule I. This is bunk and smacks of poor research at best and fearmongering at worst. I've also decided to remove the term "powerful"-- ketamine may or many not be powerful (whatever a "powerful" drug is), but its potency and efficacy are better addressed in the ketamine article and its references. I also explicitly referred to it as a dissociative anesthetic and linked it as such.

I think the slang section is about as long as it ever needs to be (unless new important usages pop up), since this article should really be about napthoquinones. Is this section a good solution, or should there be a disambiguation page? Kajerm 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are Vitamin K and ketamine the same thing?

Are vitamin K and ketamine the same thing? I have looked on websites and they tell me they are different however other websites say they are the same. Which is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.252.29 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

No. This question is addressed in the article at the top in the comment about disambiguation with ketamine. --EricE 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are inconsistent

The ball and stick pictures do not currently match their respective molecular diagrams. For starters, the diagrams show oxygens double-bonded to carbon, outside the ring. The ball and stick figures show the oxygen as being part of the ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.129.47 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Vitamin K"

Vitamin K is named K for the Danish, not German, word koagulation (coagulation). This is mentioned in all the biochemistry books (hereunder Stryer: Bochemistry, Voet&Voet, Biochemistry), that deals with vitamin K. Moreover, I am Danish, as the discoverer of vitamin K is, and has heard the story from my biochemistry teachers at different lectures at the university (University of Southern Denmark). Therefore, please do not change the origin of the word back to German again. it is simply not true!

PernilleGodiva —Preceding unsigned comment added by PernilleGodiva (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article: "The new vitamin received the letter K because the initial discoveries were reported in a German journal, in which it was designated as Koagulationsvitamin."
Do you disagree with this statement? --Slashme (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Another reference is Brody, Tom (1999). Nutritional biochemistry. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-134836-9. which says it's from German --Slashme (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And also the Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, citing some references:
The designation K is derived from the German "Koagulationsvitamin": Dam, Biochem. Z. 215, 475 (1929); 220, 158 (1930); Nature 135, 652 (1935).
--Slashme (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me :-)PernilleGodiva (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will give you, that he published in a German paper. But the vitamin has not been named in German, it just fits snuggly with the spelling being alike on both languages! Therefore, the naming was made in Danish (please look at the alikeness of the words), but published in German, and therefore for the sake of being readable written like that.

It may be that the name was conceived in Danish, but we have to work with published sources. --Slashme (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's one from the horse's mouth, so to speak. "It is proposed to term this factor vitamin K (Koagulations-Vitamin in German and the Scandinavian languages)." from CLIV. THE ANTIHAEMORRHAGIC VITAMIN OF THE CHICK. BY HENRIK DAM. From the Biochemical Institute, University of Copenhagen. (Received April 8th, 1935.) so maybe we should indeed change the text to read "German and Danish"? --Slashme (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to verify the first use of Koagulations-Vitamin, but can't find those 1929 and 1930 references from Biochem Z. Does anybody have a copy? I think the article is wrong with the 1929 date: the lack of a vitamin was discovered in 1929, but the actual identity of the missing component wasn't nailed until 1935. But I can't confirm or refute this until I see those two papers ... Cloning jedi (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a followup. As far as I can tell, "Vitamin K" wasn't coined until 1935. And it wasn't published in a German journal:

"In 1934, after much experimentation with the addition of vitamin C and other known vitamins, he concluded that a hitherto unknown factor was essential for the coagulation of blood. He called this substance “vitamin K” (from the first letter of the Danish and German word (coagulation), thus symbolizing its ability to coagulate blood and to prevent hemorrhage. Within a year after this discovery, Doisy elucidated the chemical nature of vitamin K." -from http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63617-3/fulltext

"Vitamin K" is first mentioned in 1935: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1266625/ . Dam did not use the term in his 1934 Biochem J paper, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253344/, which implies he hadn't thought of the word yet. What he discovered in 1929 was that something was missing; but what this was didn't become clear for another 5 or 6 years. Unless somebody can show me those Biochem Z papers then I will edit the article accordingly. The quote from the Merck Index ('The designation K is derived from the German "Koagulationsvitamin": Dam, Biochem. Z. 215, 475 (1929); 220, 158 (1930); Nature 135, 652 (1935).'), isn't sufficient by itself, as it's not clear exactly what the citation is supporting (and people do make mistakes in citations). Dam claims it was from "Scandinavian and German", in 1935, in his Nobel Lecture: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1943/dam-lecture.html. The 1999 Brody reference asserts it's from German, without a supporting citation, by the way. Cloning jedi (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PernilleGodiva implies Coagulation is the German word for coagulation. It isn't. It begins with a K, Koagulation. The Danish is perhaps the same spelling as the German. Or the German is the same spelling as the Danish. Possibly a touch of Germanophobia here.Fletcherbrian (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources (of vitamin K)

Just chicken egg yolks? Really? That seems unusually specific. Do we mean all bird eggs or really just chickens? 172.142.84.245 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see bananas in the list of main sources, but at 0.5 micrograms per 100 grams, I dispute whether bananas can really be considered a true 'main source' of Vitamin K. I suspect there is a confusion here between the Vitamin K and the mineral Potassium (Chemical symbol K). As a non expert, I have not edited out bananas, but, at least added a link to the banana page that was missing that shows that Vitamin K is not listed as a significant nutrient within the fruit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.246.4.6 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can we get rid of the '1/2 a cup' rubbish, I would do it but I don't feel qualified given that the 'cup' measurement is different depending on what is being measured - totally asinine. Measurements by weight please, not based on some idiotic method which results in different amounts every time something is apportioned.

How much is a cup? Is this referring to a:

1) Metric Cup 2) US customary Cup 3) US legal Cup, 4) An Imperial Cup, 5) A Japanese Cup 6) A traditional Japanese Customary cup.

Or is it referring to weight, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_%28unit%29#Using_volume_measures_to_estimate_mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.18.189 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It just an approximate amount, even using an exact mass of the foodstuff would presumably give only a certain degree of accuracy to the figures which will vary. To be honest the real problem is giving vague approximations then having 3 significant figures in the amounts of the vitamins. It implies a level of precision that simply isnt justified. But whatever, people who want to know how much K is in brocolli or want to compare food A with food B can get the info they are looking for. 78.55.151.47 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

topical vitamin k

may be worth having a section in the article on topical use of vitamin k http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10594627?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBMdoc (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Green leafy vegetables e.g. spinach, swiss chard, lettuce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.75.7 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarity please? "dark circles"

What on earth are dark circles??! Please elaborate?Jkjambsj (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "Fifty-seven adults with dark circles participated in this 8-week study" being, 57 members of the freemasons, the illuminati, the Vatican and similar dark circles.Jkjambsj (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


NPOV Question: Vitamin K as a Beauty Product

In the Vitamin K as a Beauty Product section, the results of the study referenced are described "the results, while not a slam-dunk, weren't exactly discouraging either". This seems to be breaking NPOV and offers no concrete information as to what the results of the study really were. 24.185.71.65 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I've removed that phrase. Mindmatrix 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin K as a Beauty Product

I have added the importance-sect tag to "Vitamin K as a Beauty Product". Considering one study with ambiguous results, I do not feel this worthy of inclusion. Notably, considering the psychological aspects of testing, the current text do not imply anything interesting. (That this applies to the source too, is obviously not guaranteed.) 88.77.151.79 (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

needs section re vitamin-D toxicity or inappropriate vascular mineralization

emerging area but reasonably notable by now- calcification in cvd or ckd hgas only recntly been noted to be of clinical rtelevance. Krueger, T; Ketteler, M; Schurgers, LJ; Floege, J (Jul-2009). "Vitamin K deficiency in CKD patients: a modifiable risk factor for vascular calcification?". Kidney international. 76 (1): 18–22. doi:10.1038/ki.2009.126. PMC 10.1038/ki.2009.126. PMID 19387474. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Krueger, T; Schurgers, L; Brandenburg, V (Feb-2009). "Coagulation meets calcification: the vitamin K system". The International journal of artificial organs. 32 (2): 67–74. PMID 19363777. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Spasovski, GB (2007). "Bone health and vascular calcification relationships in chronic kidney disease". International urology and nephrology. 39 (4): 1209–16. doi:10.1007/s11255-007-9276-9. PMC 10.1007/s11255-007-9276-9. PMID 17899431. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Hruska, KA; Mathew, S; Lund, R. "Renal osteodystrophy, phosphate homeostasis, and vascular calcification". Seminars in dialysis. 20 (4): 309–15. doi:10.1111/j.1525-139X.2007.00300.x. PMC 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2007.00300.x. PMID 17635820. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help)

Proudfoot, D (Oct-2006). "Molecular mechanisms mediating vascular calcification: role of matrix Gla protein". Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.). 11 (5): 455–61. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1797.2006.00660.x. PMC 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2006.00660.x. PMID 17014561. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Younes, NA; Mahafzah, W; Ailabouni, W; Al-Mansour, M; Hamzah, Y; Sroujieh, AS (May-2006). "The spectrum of bone disease in Jordanian hemodialysis patients". Saudi medical journal. 27 (5): 667–71. PMID 16680258. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

de Francisco, AL (Dec-2004). "Secondary hyperparathyroidism: review of the disease and its treatment". Clinical therapeutics. 26 (12): 1976–93. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.011. PMC 10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.12.011. PMID 15823762. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Okada, N (May-2004). "[K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for management of renal osteodystrophy in predialysis patients]". Clinical calcium. 14 (5): 698–706. PMID 15577030. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) 



Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

K2 deficiency

"Vitamin K2 (menaquinone, menatetrenone) is normally produced by bacteria in the large intestine,[2] and dietary deficiency is extremely rare unless the intestines are heavily damaged, are unable to absorb the molecule, or are subject to decreased production by normal flora, as seen in broad spectrum antibiotic use[3]."

This is ungrounded information. I checked both sources (2) and (3) and there are no such conclusions there. Please add relevant publication backing this claim.

--79.186.82.165 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is little evidence to support intestinal flora as source of vitamin K in humans and even less so in breastfeeding infants who's flora will digsest vitamin k but doesn't produce K this was originally noted by H Dam, and is in some other subsequent studies. There is evidence that from vitamin k 1 it is converted in the body to K2 , radioactive labeled material eaten. This whole subject experienced an explosion of research about 10 or so years ago, having to with preventing or dealing with diseases of the aging baby boomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.26.122 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we need both K1 and K2

Article does not clarify if we need both K1 and K2 or any of K3, K4, K5. The EPIC-Heidelburg study suggests that K1 does not fully substitute for K2. Many places in the article just refer to vitamin K without clarifying if they mean K1 or K2 or some typical mixture of the two. Rod57 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New study on tranexamic acid

I recently saw a headline that an antifibrolytic agent, tranexamic acid, was found to be a life-saving intervention against bleeding and death from accidents.[4][5] Though perhaps the research hasn't yet been done, I thought I should just toss out the question of whether vitamin K injection has been tested for trauma in non-deficient people other than childbirth or osteoporotic bone fracture. Is vitamin K a non-prescription alternative to tranexamic acid for purposes of first aid?

The Lancet article doesn't discuss vitamin K, but to me something seems very suspicious. A traumatic accident should be the acid test in the evolution of clotting. If an injection of a drug to fool with the regulation of clotting at the last moment could save tens of thousands of lives, doesn't that imply that the general population is a little short on some natural nutrient, perhaps that of vitamin K? Wnt (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this accurate?

"Treatment usually consists of repeated intravenous doses of vitamin K, followed by doses in pill form for a period of at least two weeks, though possibly up to 2 months, afterwards (in the case of the more potent 4-hydoxycoumarins used as rodenticides). If caught early, prognosis is good, even when great amounts of the drug or poison are ingested."

Really? I don't know anything about human medicine, but in animals (pets that accidentally ingest rodenticides) we might give one subcutaneous injection of Vit K1 and then oral therapy for however long is needed based on the exact rodenticide. I've never heard of Vit K1 being administered IV??? In fact, I have heard of adverse reactions occuring from a SQ injection....let alone an IV injection. Can anyone clarify this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.100.172 (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Vitamin K injections can be used to stop internal bleeding on dogs. Followed by Vitamin K pills. Main use is if dog is suffering from symptoms of ingesting certain type of rat poison that kills rats with an anticogluent. Symptoms in dog will be lethargic, spotted gums and pale tongue. Source: is self from veterinary clinic in Willmar Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.50.143 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Article treatment of MK4 vs MK7

While the article does note that MK7 is helpful with arterial calcification, there are a number of places in the article where MK4 is noted as having beneficial effects, as if to the exclusion of other forms of K2 such as MK7. I realize that there are more citations in the literature regarding MK4 but should this be corrected? It seems like both MK4 and MK7 have beneficial effects (though different dosages of each are tolerated) and this isn't uniformly presented in the article. Also, there are some suggestions that K2 improves bone strength disproportionate to improvements in bone mineral density. While many drugs have better efficacy in promoting BMD K2 is comparable-or-superior in terms of preventing fractures relative to many drugs. I don't have authoritative cites for this on hand, but given that structure and not just density is a significant factor, perhaps something along these lines is worth noting? --Ryan W (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

European J. of Nutrition quote

Guidance level for upper safe intake of vitamin K. Vitamin K is a lipid soluble vitamin. The current consideration of a tolerable upper level for vitamin K is focused on phylloquinone, the predominant dietary source. The SCF concludes in their opinion on vitamin K that, in the limited numbers of human studies,‘there is no evidence of adverse effects associated with supplementary intakes of vitamin K in the form of phylloquinone of up to 10 mg/day (more than two orders of magnitude higher than the recommended dietary intake of vitamin K) for limited periods of time.’ The SCF is, therefore,not able to establish a UL for vitamin K intake.The same conclusion was reached by the US IOM and by the EVM [5, 21]. The EVM has,however, established a GL for safe upper intake by applying an uncertainty factor of 10 to the dose of 10 mg/day that has been investigated in a small number of subjects (n=8) [40] resulting in a GL of 1 mg/day that is unlikely to result in adverse effects [21].We suggest using this GL until further knowledge on potential adverse effects of vitamin K is gathered.We also suggest differentiating this GL to other age groups on a bw0.75 basis(see Table 2).

---some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Vit K1/K2/K3

I am not clear about the role of Vit K 2 in coagulation. Antibiotic use can prolong PT time. I think a table would be useful: Source, role confirmed/suspected, influenced by. Right now it's a pretty chemical article, but the practical implication are vast. Thanks, keep up the good work. Flori122 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent information about deficiency.

The article says under Vitamin K absorption and dietary need that deficiency was thought to be uncommon, then found to be common. Later, it says under Deficiency that deficiency is uncommon. 63.192.133.72 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin K2 and Heart Disease

The Rotterdam Study is cited (39 : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282) but only in the context of Vitamin K absorption. While arterial calcification is mentioned here and there in the article, I think there are grounds for a section titled "Vitamin K2 and Heart Disease" citing the Rotterdam Study, amongst others (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179058). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.99.162 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I added an older reference that explicitly mentions (in the abstract) aortic calcification. Whether this justifies creating a new section heading, I don't know. Greensburger (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No interference with or interaction with dabigatran etexilate / Pradaxa:

No interference with or interaction with Pradaxa:

"Research into the antioxidant properties of vitamin K indicates that the concentration of vitamin K is lower in the circulation of carriers of the APOE4 gene"

This is indecipherable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


“ Drug Interactions - PRADAXA (dabigatran etexilate)

http://www.pradaxapro.com/drug-interactions.jsp

Drug Interactions | PRADAXA (dabigatran etexilate) ... Drug interactions 3 ... Protamine sulfate and vitamin K are not expected to affect dabigatran anticoagulant …

Pradaxa interacts with vitamin K antagonists (warfarin) but not with vitamin K.”

--Ocdnctx (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just made the thing about new anticoagulants more general. We could also mention apixaban and edoxaban if we wanted... I gave the chemical names instead of the trade names. The editor did something weird on my first attempt, which is why the entire section got deleted. Hopefully it's OK now! Cloning jedi (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

sources of vitamin k table shows incorrect figures for raw and cooked food. they should be switched as it appears that food is gaining vitamins after cooking. or is this meant to demonstrate that more vitamins are absorbed from from cooked food must show

ources of vitamin k table shows incorrect figures for raw and cooked food. they should be switched as it appears that food is gaining vitamins after cooking. or is this meant to demonstrate that more vitamins are absorbed from from cooked food must show clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.59.182 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is this article aimed at?

When a layman goes to an encyclopedia he wants to have an explanation of something he perhaps knows nothing about. This article is totally incomprehensible to a layman. The first paragraph has nine links to try to explain what it is talking about - it fails on all counts.

I despair when I see a Wikipedia article written by 'experts' who assume everyone knows what they are talking about. If we did, we wouldn't look up the subject on Wikipedia.

I looked up Vitamin K in Simple [sic] English and found out exactly what I was looking for. A clear concise explanation of Vitamin K. Cannonmc (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

"Menaquinone is not inhibited by salicylates as happens with K1, so menaquinone supplementation can alleviate the chronic vitamin K deficiency caused by long-term aspirin use." This is completely wrong. Aspirin is not an Vitamin K antagonist nor does it interfere with Vitamin K metabolism in any way. The author obviously confused Aspirin with the warfarin like drugs. BUT in this case it's known that K2 interferes with the action of those drugs just like K1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.28.159 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are studies showing salicylate interfering with K1 metabolism but I can find no reference that long-term aspirin use caused "chronic vitamin K deficiency". Nor can I find any reference that concludes that the menaquinones are free from any such interference. That section warrants removal as currently written.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3726797
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6136582
Liberato (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So I saw some suspected vandalism [6], but since the claim was unsourced either way, I went to seek a source. What I found was that whole paragraph was in [7], published January 2001. I discovered this material was added in December 2001 [8]. The first paragraph in the "Structures of K-vitamins" section is also taken from that source. What I've done is removed all the material from that section of the infringing edit which remains in the article up to today. I suspect the rest of the material in the other sections is also copyright infringement, but I'm not sure. If anyone wants to take a look, that would be great. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin K and memory

There should be a section dealing specifically with memory and vitamin K.

One link of many is here Fletcherbrian (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That link is dead. There are epidemiology studies suggesting low vitamin K intake or status correlates to cognitive impairment in older adults, but lower K could be due to changes in diet as a consequence of impairment. No prospective clin trials (no reviews either). One trial tracked 10 years of people on or not on warfarin (vitamin K antagonist). Results were no change in rate of mental decline versus not on the drug. (Ferland G, et al. Vitamin K Antagonists and Cognitive Function in Older Adults: The Three-City Cohort Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016 Oct;71(10):1356-62.) David notMD (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Kellog's Special K

When I was a kid in the 1960s Kellog's Special K was touted as being a good source of vitamin K and somehow therefore healthy for the heart.

There's no or very little vitamin K in Special K now, if there ever was any in the first place.Fletcherbrian (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Split this page

This page should be split into three, K, K1, K2, because K1 and K2 are so different that they should be clearly separated. 24.6.132.239 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are already articles about Vitamin K2 and Phylloquinone. Mindmatrix 16:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

natto

this article says over 1000mcg K2 in natto, but the natto article says below 30, and the same small number is listed in wolfram-alpha. what is the explanation for such a discrepancy? Krisztián Pintér (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Units!

The table for k1 had units of micrograms while the reference had units of millicentigrams. Are the other ues of micrograms correct? Colonel hack (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC) But its source says micrograms, so I reverted my edit but this might should still be checked up on. Colonel hack (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of vitamin K cycle

doi:10.1111/jth.13217 JFW | T@lk 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs)

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), or Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, plus 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 should be 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. DVs were based on older RDAs and as of 2016 have never been updated to reflect the newer DRIs. Thus, often a product has 100% DV not same as 100% RDA. Examples given for each vitamin. 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 nutrients entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome.David notMD (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Text on Daily Values changed to reflect official changes. For most nutrients the 100% DV was revised lower. Vitamin K was one of a few revised higher (vitamin D, vitamin C).David notMD (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Anticoagulant drug interactions

"Sometimes small amounts of vitamin K (one milligram per day) are given orally to patients taking warfarin so that the action of the drug is more predictable."

The NIH reference given for that sentence does not support the 1mg per day statement. It suggests not taking any supplements at all unless approved by your physician. It also does not seem intuitively correct because 1 mg does not seem small for a substance (K1) that is usually measured in mcg. The reference only suggests keeping your dietary levels consistent. So, can whoever added that one milligram per day sentence please document it. Liberato (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberato (talk • contribs) 10:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Source for some history of synthetic Vitamin K1

There is some interesting discussion around pages 169, 172 and 228 of the book The Scientific method by Louis F. Fieser about Vitamin K1 around the time it was being first isolated and synthesised. It also talks about a cat (Syn Kai Pooh) named after synthetic Vitamin K1

http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/the_scientific_method.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idyllic press (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 5a goals

1) reorder sections and create a new "Medical Uses" section. merge "health effects" and "pediatric injections" sections into this new section. Will model edits to the Vitamin K article structure after the Vitamin C article since it is rated as a Good Article. - done
2) expand on the use of Vitamin K as an antidote for over anticoagulation - done, added two references for use in warfarin overdose, added one reference for rodenticide poisoning
3) Moved specific treatment guidelines for Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding to the Haemorrhagic disease of the newborn article (including 3 references)
4) add some information about adverse reactions/side effects to vitamin K, since vitamin K given intravenously can cause some allergic reactions - added one reference

Kshim054 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 5c Peer Review

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The lead section does a good job of summarizing the multiple facets of vitamin K. A new section for “medical uses” was created as stated in the goal. All the subsection under this section are well organized and have clear heading. The use of Vitamin K as an antidote does not show large improvements, however. Added new information for Vitamin K use as an antidote. Kshim054 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group achieved their goals of reorganizing and adding information into a “Medical Uses” heading. They also added more information on the use of Vitamin K in treating over-anticoagulation and possible adverse reactions that can be seen when using Vitamin K.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? The sources cited are mostly secondary sources and are freely available to the public Msleee (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, Specify… Yes, the edits fit in with the structure and tone that the article originally contained, one that is informative with no grammar issues. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The use of Vitamin K as an antidote was barely touched upon, but the other goals appear to be fulfilled. Snselim (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

5. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, the changes made by the group do not demonstrate any bias and are supported by secondary literature and well-established treatment guidelines. Vicknguy (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations, claims are sourced and cited appropriately.

Other: Regarding the following sentence under Warfarin Overdose heading: "Vitamin K is also used in situations when a patient's INR is above therapeutic range (normally 2.0-3.0) and there is no active bleeding." This does not correspond to the information in the cited source, which states Vit K should be used in pts without active bleeding only when INR is >10. When INR is lower (but above therapeutic range) recommendation is to hold Warfarin. Storm1625 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We have changed the sentence to be more aligned with the guidelines. Kshim054 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing for possible GA nomination

Starting August 26, editing the article before deciding to submit a Good Article nomination. Starting with looking at all references, with attention to any that are not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Replaced Methods of assessment subsection. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Changed section order to match order in vitamin articles that are Good Articles. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyright check: three sites (m,blog, Youngevity Wiki, Mays3.weebly) show >95% probability of match. Very likely these are copies of Wikipedia rather than the other way around, as they all appear to have content that was in the July 2015 version of the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Replaced Absorption section. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Added Definition section (such a section exists in vitamin articles that are Good Articles). David notMD (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for GA review on September 21. Article will continue to be edited while awaiting review. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Replaced K1 sources table. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Added K2 sources table. David notMD (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor has agreed to conduct a GA review, but is waiting on my notification that I have completed my pre-review edits. The Chemistry and Research sections still need work. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Research section revised. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vitamin K/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Thanks @David notMD for your many edits to this article!! I will review this article against the six good article criteria. I'm an active medicine and anatomy editor and you can see my GA reviews and also articles I have helped write to GA standards there. I can see that you're still planning on moving through and adding references to the article on the talk page, so I will put this review on hold and please ping me when you're ready. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I will fiddle with WikiGnomish tweaks to help the article along. Thanks for picking up the review task, Tom. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The term "food-sourced" is used as a noun but it looks like an adjective. Should we tell the reader what is food-sourced? Perhaps at the first instance.
  • One of the dash-related changes I made was to use an en dash in the formulation "Vitamin K–deficient". This is because the hyphen of "K-deficient" is not appropriate when there is a space in the modifier, which in this case is "Vitamin K", not just "K".
  • The "Chemistry" section had a tag asking for more citations but it doesn't apply any longer, after recent improvements. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What do you think of using the fraction template in the food table, for instance changing 1/2 cup to 1⁄2 cup? It's a very minor thing. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT) and Binksternet Let's do it! I revised the Research section. OK with me to remove the tag on the Chemistry section, but I will be trying to replace or supplement animal references with human if possible. Yes to the fraction symbol for half-cups. I will look over the various uses of -sourced. Issue is any need to distinguish among from plants, from animals, from synthetic. I am very much looking to see what fresh eyes bring to this article (my sixth vitamin GA nomination). David notMD (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes to that. And thanks for doing the fractional 1/2 cup. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi David notMD, just checking that you've seen my comments below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Will start to get to today. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Review by Tom (LT)

Assessment

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Overall fairly well done, however some areas are difficult to read due to use of acronyms.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. At the moment, some areas lack citations. Also, if possible, areas with several citations provided could be trimmed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). One or two citations are reaching the terminal end of their usefulness (See comments)
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Checked with Earwig's
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

{{GATable/item|5|y| }

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Verified
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Thanks for your edits to this article - overall it's looking good and it flows very well. As some general comments, I think readability could be improved by replacing with full words acronyms that are only used a few times.

With regards to reliability, there are around 5 - 10 sentence or paragraphs that lack citations. Also, there are a number of statements that are pretty general or noncontroversial that I conversely think need less citations (having many citations for this sort of thing also impacts on verifiability). I have marked this in my last edit. [9] Sometimes I marked a paragraph or sentence with a single tag even though a few sentences in that paragraph may need attention.

In the next day or two I'll comment more specifically on prose, do a copyvio and image check.

Overall the article is very close to GA standard. Lastly please see my points as points for discussion rather than as absolute dictats - I am happy to discuss with you as we go. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio and image check completed without issues.
Regarding prose - the only thing I'd request at this juncture apart from the issue of some acronyms would requesting you try and use the "Convert" template ({{Convert}}) for 'oz'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll put the review on hold until the above concerns are addressed. Because choice of citations will impact on reliability and probably prose, I'll wait until citations are provided to comment on prose; apologies for doing it in this piecemeal fashion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Addressing comments

  • Addressed all Excessive citations tags. Net change was reducing from 92 to 85 references. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to plaster the article with too many such tags, so there is still some work left. Could you perform a general sweep of the article (except for the Research section, where I do agree more than one citation is often needed)? There are still quite a few instances of single sentences that are not controversial that have two citations. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Creation and use of acronyms greatly reduced. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, great. Please see the "Dietary recommendations" section, still has a large amount of acronyms that should be put into words. For example: The EFSA and Japan AIs are lower than the U.S. RDAs. Also I note that there is inconsistent use of your acronym formatting, some acronyms have period marks ("U.S.") but others don't. I suggest replace all acronyms with their full text except for "US" (without period marks), and consider if the terms you do use such as "recommended daily intake", "upper limit" etc. can be decapitalised for ease of reading.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • All Citations needed resolved by either new refs, existing refs, or removing text that a ref could not be found in support. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Readability

Thanks for addressing the above concerns. The content of what you have written is excellent, I only have some minor concerns regarding this - but I think the article is difficult to read because of some structural and organisational elements - definitely happy to discuss if you have alternate points of view, but my concerns are:

  • I find the article's structure somewhat confusing; for example:
    • the article launches straight into telling the reader about deficiency and recommended intake without really telling them what the vitamin is or does or where it is naturally sourced from
    • bits about warfarin are scattered about this article; I personally think that this should be placed in the warfarin section as the primary topic of the article is Vitamin K
  • I think some bits need moving around as you'll see below
  • Definition
    • ""Vitamin K" refers to several forms of this vitamin, i.e., an essential nutrient absorbed from food, a product synthesized and marketed as part of a multi-vitamin or as a single-vitamin dietary supplement, and a prescription medication for specific purposes" took me several readthroughts to understand your meaning. Could it be simplified (maybe changing the 'ie' to 'including'?)
    • "(figure)" - uncertain which figure
    • wikilink quinone
    • a lot of this section seems to be more like an introduction or overview as compared with a definition, as you talk about sources and how it's used which really should be in other sections I feel
      • REPLY: Location of figure stated. Quinone and side chain out of quote marks, and quinone Wikilinked. Removed content that did not belong in Definition (and is covered elsewhere).David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vitamin deficiency
    • "Secondary vitamin K deficiency". I am having trouble understanding what you mean by secondary. It seems like disorders of intake (bulemnia, stringent diets, anorexia) and absorption (inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal surgery) would surely be primary?
    • Suggest wikilink "prothrombin" and reword hypoprothrombinemia to "low prothrombin levels" because that's easier to understand
      • REPLY: In a nutrient deficiency context, consuming too little of the nutrient is considered primary; any condition that that causes a deficiency state despite adequate intake - such as malabsorption - is secondary. Text revised to make the distinction clear. Text also revised to be more clear on what defines vitamin K deficiency. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Dietary recommendations
    • Please decapitalise adequate intake, RDA and EAR
    • Replace "IOM" with "institute of medicine" as that's much easier to understand
    • "(known as ULs or "upper limits")" --> " (known as "upper limits") as you don't use the acronym.
    • "U.S. FDA" --> "US FDA", and standardise
    • "ages 19 and up " --> "and older"
    • "It is still used as a supplement in animal foodstuffs" --> "some foodstuffs" (surely not all)
      • REPLY: IOM deleted as defined acronym and subsequent uses now Institute. Adequate Intake, Estimated Average Requirement and Recommended Dietary Allowance remain capitalized because there are the official terms. UL removed as acronym because not used subsequently. U.S. became US. Changed to "and older". Changed to "some foodstuffs." David notMD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Sources
    • This section needs an introductory statement that states in general K1, K2 and where they occur, plants vs. animals
    • "†Animal-sourced foods contain small amounts of vitamin K1 but these and a few fermented, plant-sourced foods, natto being the best example, contain vitamin K2. " sorry, I'm unclear what this means
    • This should be moved to your warfarin section: "For people prescribed warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, while some of these plant sources are high in vitamin K1, medical advice is not to avoid these foods entirely (except perhaps boiled collard greens, spinach and turnip greens), but rather to keep vitamin K intake as consistent as possible, so that the combination of vitamin intake and warfarin keep the anti-clotting activity in the therapeutic range.[19]"
    • This sentence needs to be simplified and explained slightly more for lay readers: "For vitamin K from plants, the tight binding to thylakoid membranes in chloroplasts makes it less bioavailable, whether raw or cooked, compared to the vitamin in a dietary supplement.[3] "
    • This fact needs some introduction "Nattō, made from bacteria-fermented soybeans, is a rich food source of vitamin K2 MK-7.[6] Animal-sourced foods are a source of vitamin K2 varients MK-4, MK-5, MK-6, MK-7, MK-8, MK-9, MK-10 and MK-11.[20][21] "
      • REPLY: Introductory statement added. Text below Vit K1 table removed. Warfarin mention moved to warfarin section. "Tight binding" content simplified and moved to absorption section. David notMD (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Medical uses
    • I suggest adding the subsection "Anticoagulation", with an introduction to warfarin in that section as something that blocks the downstream action of Vitamin K
    • The current starting paragraph should be moved to the rodenticide section: "Vitamin K is also part of the suggested treatment regime for poisoning by rodenticide (coumarin poisoning).[22] Vitamin K treatment may only be necessary in people who deliberately have consumed large amounts of rodenticide or have consumed an unknown amount of rodenticide. Patients are given oral vitamin K1 to prevent the negative effects of rodenticide poisoning, and this dosing must sometimes be continued for up to nine months in cases of poisoning by "superwarfarin" rodenticides such as brodifacoum. Oral Vitamin K1 is preferred over other vitamin K1 routes of administration because it has fewer side effects.[23] "
    • "Treating newborns" should be renamed, I think, to something like "In Newborns", because Vitamin K is not used for treatment, but for prevention as you state
    • Managing warfarin therapy - suggest you state explicitly how it works near the start of this subsection, as htis is important in relation to Vitamin K. Also, suggest you split the section into two - one part about stable dietary intake, and the second paragraph in relation to reversal
    • "Treating coumarin (rodenticide) poisoning" suggest remove 'coumarin' from the title as it seems like this is stating coumarin = rodenticide, when in fact coumarin is also an oral anticoagulant.
      • REPLY: Per GA review comments, Rodenticide content consolidated, newborns subsection title changed, warfarin content now two paragraphs, and coumarin removed from subsection title. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Chemistry
    • "presence of a phytyl group" - could phytyl be wikilinked?
    • " Three forms not found in nature are K3 (menadione), K4, and K5. K3 is used in the pet food industry.[31] K5 is used to inhibit fungal growth when sprayed on foods.[32] " - should this be placed in the 'uses' section instead of 'chemistry'?
  • Biochemistry - this section is really well written! Makes some quite complex concepts fairly easy to understand
    • I suggest merge this section with 'physiology' as they seem to be the same and biochemistry is by far more easy to understand
    • Move measurement out of this section - it should be in medical uses
    • "Within the cell, vitamin K undergoes electron" - this paragraph would benefit if you added an inital sentence explaining that vitamin K is continuously recycled.
      • REPLY: Prefer to keep Biochemistry and Physiology as separate sections, with the former what the vitamin does and the latter the consequences. Measurement subsection moved. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • History - well written.

REPLY: I believe I have addressed all of the Readability comments. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks David notMD for being so responsive. There are still some pending issues - most of which I suspect you may have accidentally skipped over in my list above:--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • These things will block nomination (relating to verifiability, MOS and well written)
      • A citation needed tag has crept in to "Vitamin K2"
      • When you refer to institute of medicine it should be decapitalised when referred to as "the institute" (MOS:INSTITUTIONS). Adequate intake and daily value should also be decapitalised (In the names of scientific and mathematical concepts, only proper names (or words derived from them) should be capitalized, from WP:MOSCAPS). Happy to get a second opinion on this one if you want, but it really does stand out as nonstandard formatting that doesn't meet with the manual of style requirements.
      • Definition section needs to define Vitamin K. Currently it starts with explaining what it does ("This vitamin has several roles"). I suggest reincluding the lead sentence so the section reads something like this: Vitamin K refers to structurally similar, fat-soluble vitamers found in foods and marketed as dietary supplements. "Vitamin K" include several chemical compounds. These are similar in structure in that they share a quinone ring, but differ in the length and degree of saturation of the carbon tail and the number of repeating isoprene units in the side chain (see figures in Chemistry section)
        • REPLY: Removed the sentence that had triggered a "citation needed" for K2 source being intestinal bacteria. No MEDRS ref could be found. And an animal (rat) study actually showed that colonic absorption of vitamin K is not a significant contributor to K status. Capitalization of Institute and other scientific concepts changed to not capitalized. Defintion section reworded. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Please consider these, but they won't block nomination:
      • Consider moving the second section, "Vitamin K deficiency", downwards, as it is confusing to have it placed before some further explanatory information about vitamin K (eg sources, dietary recommendations).
      • Consider including a statement at the start of the warfarin section that explains how warfarin works in brief (I realise that it's already included in this section: "Function in animals", but I think most readers will not instinctively look to that section when reading about warfarin.

I believe I have addressed all of the second set of Readability comments. David notMD (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Did "K" come from Danish or German?

The lead suggests "K" came from Danish, and another part that it came from the language of the publication (German):

'...Danish for "coagulation"...'
'The new vitamin received the letter K because the initial discoveries were reported in a German journal'

Which language did "K" come from? (Had it been different letters in the two languages, the "K" could still have been derived from a Danish word and the German long name not containing "K".)

--Mortense (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In his lecture upon receiving the 1943 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, vitamin K discoverer Henrik Dam said that "K" was the next available letter for naming a newly-identified vitamin. Also, according to Merriam-Webster (and stated in Dam's lecture), both Danish and German (also Swedish and Norwegian) have "k" as the first letter in "coagulation", making K a convenient, appropriate choice, which is a useful mnemonic for remembering its main "koagulation" role in animals. Zefr (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Better answer than I was going to supply, as I got as far as it being koagulation in both Danish and German. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"so-called"

"so-called" is not the same as "commonly known as" or "informally known as" - rather, it implies skepticism to some degree. --142.163.194.237 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_K/Archive_1&oldid=1171758978"