Talk:Estrogen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Estrogen Production

Is it just me, or does it look weird to have this section start with a sentence about the production of testosterone, the major androgen? The human body can and does aromatize testosterone to estardiol, but this is not the major pathway for production in females. Any objections to deleting this sentence? Pustelnik (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the production of estrone in peripheral adipose tissue be mentioned as a site of synthesis?Peetiemd (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could

Could you back up that claim of controversiality of HRT to treat menopause symptoms? AFAIK it is pretty much standard by now.
Anyway, that note should probably be moved to the HRT article. -- Kimiko 20:36, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

HRT pros and cons

I think HRT after menopause still has the increased risk of osteoporosis. However, I think I've read somewhere that it reduces the occurence of cardiovascular diseases. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. AttishOculus 08:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additions

This article could use some expansion, such as chemical formulas, pictures, specifics in regulating menstrual cycle, etc. I will have time within a few days to do so. -- Bubbachuck 18:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for disorders involving estrogen --geekyßroad 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sides

Estrogen do have certain side effects. I guess we should provide wholesome info. Jagdishh (talk · contribs)

What, to the physiological hormone, or to synthetic/exogenous administration? JFW | T@lk 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Estrogens in non-humans

This article is very much incomplete since it limited to estrogens in humans. A broader biological context should be included. Do animals use estrogens different than humans do. And what about estrogens in plants? Articles on biological structures and chemicals should whenever possible address fuction and structure outside of one or a few species. Any that does not is incomplete. Regrettably, I don't know enough about the subject to really contribute on this other than to point out that non-human life has estrogens as well. I am quite sure that soy plants are not using estrogen for breast enlargment. ;-) So what are they using it for? This really needs to be addressed. After all the article is "Estrogen" and not "Estrogen in humans". MichaelSH 16:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be surprised. Soy plant contain Phytoestrogens (roughly meaning plant estrogen) that are compounds that have an ability to bind to human estrogen sites, thus mimicking the hormone estrogen. In some people it could actually perform like estrogen, and could promote feminization, although in others it can act as an estrogen inhibiting agent, as phytoestrogens are generally very weak estrogen-like compounds, and only so much of hormones will actually react, so that if the estrogen binding sites are overloaded (either with excessive estrogens, or phytoestrogens) then only a part of each will bind to the sight, thus (this is grossly simplified) let us say that some particular phytoestrogen has half the effectiveness of natural estrogen, and say Subject XY has 10% saturation of estrogen binding sites with natural estrogen, and they consume sufficient phytoestrogens to have 50% of the binding sites bound, then they would have 35% of the feminization activity, but then say Subject XX has 100% of saturation with natural estrogen, and they consume the same precent of phytoestrogens, then they would have 150% of the total binding sites worth of estrogen binders fighting for 100% of the slots, thus one would end up with a ratio of about 2:1 natural estrogen to phytoestrogen, bringing their effectiveness down to 82% (66% (two thirds of the estrogen binding sites bind with natural estrogen) and 16% (one third of the binding sites bind with a phytoestrogen, which is half as effective)). So... yes, lots of text here very little said. Basically, to answer you, soy uses phytoestrogens for feminization (whose most promonent feature is breast development.) --Puellanivis 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
We do have an article on phytoestrogens. What is missing is a page or section on estrogens in non-humans as Michael pointed out. Either this page needs work or we need a disambiguation and a separate page. Steroid has info on other animals, but then there's a dead end leading here. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gender reassignment therapy?

How about something on its role in gender reassignment therapy? I know that transsexuals in Indonesia take the contraceptive pill (I think once every two days or four days or something) in order to develop female characteristics. --Singkong2005

I think contraceptive pills also contain estrogen. As I know, there are rivers in England which are polluted by contraceptive pills, resulting in males developing breasts after drinking the river water for long term. --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 10:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oestrogen or Estrogen

Surely the title of this article should be Oestrogen, as it is the most widely used spelling Chefette1223 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. Estrogen is more widely used. 14 million hits on Google for estrogen vs 2 million.—Who123 16:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oestrogen is probably the most commonly used spelling globally in the scientific world. Estrogen is used primarily in the US, and the number of hits on Google probably reflects the Internet usage in the US. The word is derived from the Greek and historically began with an oe ligature.

Who cares what the more common spelling in the "scientific world" is? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone. So if Estrogen is the more common spelling in *the* world (and I don't know if it is or not), then Wikipedia should use that. 71.206.199.209 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a science article. Estrogen is U.S spelling. That over half of English speakers on the web are American always skews the 'google hits' argument. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia (sp, lol) not an encyclopedia of U.S. usage. Hakluyt bean (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles on Google Scholar prefer estrogen over oestrogen 9:1, and the pages on Google in general prefer estrogen to oestrogen almost 10:1. There are no two ways about it: estrogen is the more common spelling. Strad (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The European Journal of Molecular Biology spells it "estrogen". The British journal Nature spells it "estrogen". AAAS spells it "estrogen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.197.222 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree. The article starts by saying "Estrogens (U.S., otherwise oestrogens or œstrogens)", that implies that it's exclusively called "Estrogen" in the U.S. and everywhere in the rest of the world it's called "Oestrogen". Why then is the English article of an international encyclopedia using the less common American spelling rather than the actual spelling? Ozzah (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That tends to happen a lot on Wikipedia - the US spelling takes preference to the rest of the world (personally, I'd prefer Oestrogen.) The US spelling is a simplification of the spelling, like most US spellings (I cite color Vs colour as a prime example). While the Wikipedia people want the articles to be international, they don't seem to apply this to spellings, which are typically US. This follows for grammar and punctuation too. The Wikipedia admins should really set a ruling on this. Also, you have to remember that in the US, there are more people with internet access and that are internet savvy than in a lot of other countries, where (proper, not US) English is still spoken as a primary language. This would skew any results in Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.110.136 (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I normally steer well clear of the US vs RestOfTheWorld spelling arguments, as they often degenerate into heated mud slinging matches, but it is exhausting to continually get smacked in the face by the old 'google hits' argument. It's self evident that a learned, definitive reference source should *not* be skewed toward a populist view. If the populist view won out every time, education standards for one thing would slump toward the 'norm' or lowest common denominator. This isn't a slur against our US cousins, as I'm actually referring to problems we are currently experiencing in the UK surrounding perceived lowering of standards in education and a disinterested youth. But I believe it illustrates why the 'well, more people do/say this' argument as inherently fallacious. Also the spelling of œstrogen affects the pronunciation. In the US I believe the first syllable is pronounced 'ess', as opposed to 'ees' (UK etc), so it's more important to stress the localisation in such cases. Having said that, I'm reasonably happy with the way the article handles this, though I still think 'œ' should be first, followed by the localised US pronunciation. Well I would say that... Blitterbug (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It is futile to talk about which word is "more" or "less" correct. The fact is that millions of English speakers around the world use one Standard English spelling and millions of Americans in one country use a different General American spelling. They are both accepted and understood labels for the one common entity. In order to make a change to the page, a NPOV argument must be brought to bear. One might cite the fact that MoS (spelling) shows an overwhelming majority of international organisations use Standard English spelling conventions. Naming conflicts does suggest a carefully specified Googlefight but as has already been asserted, this introduces inappropriate sample bias due to the disparity between the number of web servers in America (or running American software that has not been (or cannot be) changed to use(d) local spelling systems) and the number in other English speaking countries. In addition, some American-produced office suites are remarkably resilient to remembering any spelling dictionary preference other than "U.S. English" causing documents produced by Standard English speaking owners to often contain unintentional General American deviations. Thus the Googlefight is not a valid test between American and normal word preference on a global scale. If anything, the MoS (National varieties of English) should apply. Oestrogen at 18:10, 23 December 2006 was certainly not a Stub and yet StradivariusTV moved the page from its original name to the Americocentric spelling at that time. Reverting this action is probably the best avenue to pursue in this matter.58.109.0.47 (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The terms Standard English and General American do *not* mean what you think they mean--by any stretch of the imagination. The rubber part of a wheel is not a tyre in *all forms* of English other than American: Canadians too spell it tire. As for estrogen vs. oestrogen, "In British and Australian English, oestrogen is standard, whereas in American and Canadian it's estrogen. A majority of the Asian respondents to the Langscape survey (55%) also preferred estrogen." (Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 390). My point being, the picture is a little more complicated than you might think; it's not about speaking "standard English" (whatever that means to you) or being "Americocentric." Get your facts right next time. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to disagree and I welcome you correcting me but blanket censorship of a contribution you don't agree with smacks of POV. I would have thought you would agree with the point I was making. It is futile to argue that one spelling of a word is "more" or "less" correct. One version is closer to the original etymological roots and one version is more derived. Neither position makes a word more or less valuable: it still serves as a label for a commonly recognised entity. Wiki doesn't even support renaming of articles based on their name in one version of a language being deemed better or worse; it has criteria which I linked. MoS (National varieties of English) says if the first major contribution to a page upgrading it from a stub is made using one variety of spelling, it should be retained in the future unless there are strong national ties to the topic (such as The Lord Of The Rings being written about in British English). As oestrogen is not tied more strongly to the American continents than it is to Europe or Australasia, Retaining the existing variety applies and is the best course of action for those who want the subject renamed back to Oestrogen. I'm not saying "estrogen" is wrong; I am saying oestrogen was here first and Wiki says that counts. I'm 58.109.0.47 and while I approve of much of your message, JackLumber, I also approve of my own. Please try to extend the same courtesy. 58.109.0.47 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The predominant spelling within the English language wikipedia is estrogen. Using Google to search for "oestrogen" vs. "estrogen" within the en.wikipedia.org domain:
"oestrogen" – about 141
"estrogen" – about 2,600
For consistency with the rest of the articles in WP that deal in one way or another with estrogen such as estrogen receptor, estrogen related receptor, etc., it would be desirable to keep the spelling of this article's title unchanged. In addition, if the title of this article were changed, one would then need to eliminate all the double redirects that would be created here. In short, I think changing the spelling of the title of this article is a very bad idea that would create a lot of unnecessary work. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

—This is part of a comment by [[User:Boghog2 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC) which was interrupted by the following:

When Naming conflicts suggests comparing Google's search results count for spelling variants, it says to exclude Wikipedia from the search rather than to limit the search to Wikipedia's site.
* "oestrogen" 947,000
* "estrogen" 7,940,000
Nevertheless, the appropriateness of a googlefight to resolve such disputes has already been called into question. The other (below) research on usage by International Organisations, however, is relevant and interesting.58.111.81.107 (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and for the very relevant link. Just to clarify, the point with limiting the Google search to Wikipedia was not to replace the external Wikipedia search which you and others have already done, but to provide a complementary argument based on promoting consistency between Wikipedia articles. I admit, this is a weaker argument since the WP:MOS only promotes consistency within articles and not necessarily between articles. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, it would be desirable that related articles that are linked to each other use consistent spelling. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The preferred spelling by following three international scientific organizations is "estrogen":
  • According to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the preferred name for the estradiol ring skeleton is "estrane" (page 1789: section 38-2.2. Estrane (oestrane)) and the preferred trivial name for the principle estrogen hormone is "Estradiol-17α" (page 1806, Table 2):
    • "IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). The nomenclature of steroids. Recommendations 1989" (PDF). Eur. J. Biochem. 186 (3): 429–58. December 1989. doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.1989.tb15228.x. PMID 2606099. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    • G. P. Moss (1989). "Nomenclature of Steroids (Recommendations 1989)". Pure & Appl. Chem. 61 (10): 1783–1822. doi:10.1351/pac198961101783.
Please note in particular:

In addition to nomenclature guidelines, the IUPAC sets standards for international spelling in the event of a dispute; for example, it ruled that aluminium is preferable to the American aluminum and American sulfur is preferable to the British sulphur.

And as first pointed out by Special:Contributions/67.101.69.40 below, searching PubMed with the search query "ESTROGEN[TI]" produces 29727 hits while "OESTROGEN[TI]" produces 5010 hits (where TI = Words and numbers included in the title of a citation.). The preference in the worlds scientific literature for "estrogen" over "oestrogen" is almost 6:1. (Granted the title search includes foreign language text that was translated into (American) English which would skew the results somewhat in favor of the "estrogen" spelling, but foreign language article entries are a relatively small proportion of the PubMed article database.) Boghog2 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
OK restricting the above PubMed search to "Limits:English" yields 26616 for "estrogen" and 4952 for "oestrogen", a slightly reduced but still above a 5:1 ratio. Boghog2 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary of health risks

Removed the following inaccurate sentences:

It is now accepted as very likely that estrogen replacement therapy increases the risks of endometrial cancer, breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and dementia.
The labeling of estrogen-containing products in the U.S. includes a warning alerting to these risks.[1]
  1. It has been known for over three decades that unopposed estrogen (without a progestogen) increases the risk of endometrial cancer.
  2. It is highly controversial, not "now accepted as very likely", that estrogen replacement therapy increases the risks of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and dementia.
  3. The cited important warning of risks included as boxed warnings are for estrogen-only products for postmenopausal women, not for all estrogen-containing products.

69.208.166.122 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

estrogen in environment

i am reading this discussion about estrogens being hard to break down, and so they make their way to rivers via female products, nappies, etc. this then tinkers with sexuality of fish, males, etc. anyone have info about this? --ti 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Leading to the topic of estrogen pollution Googled Here. Nice article at The Dire Effects of Estrogen Pollution Estrogen from environment enters human food chain or is injected into it by farmers. It is also used in various chemical products such as plastics (water/milk/soda packaging). Increased estrogen in humans can cause premature brest growth in children, man brest, testicle and prostate cancers, as well as other cancers, depression and dementia, and even low sperm count and infertility. All from the "material we call plastics". Also, "got milk" is loaded with estrogen since cows are injected to produce more. If you are a guy and have cerial every morning, you are a gambler. Organic milk might be better but cow is still an estrogen producing female. -- 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here what might happen with synthetic estrogen pollution (from PNAS:

Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Interesting... Cyrus Grisham 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Estrogens is the spelling preferred by 5 of 6 web users, and also by 12 out of every 13 scientists studying Estrogen

The article would be greatly improved by acknowledging the alternative spelling at the outset -- "Estrogens (alternatively Oestrogens) are ... " and throughout the rest of the article using the preferred "estrogens" spelling.

A Google search turns up 3,500,000 references to Estrogens -- almost five times as many as the 750,000 references to "Oestrogens." A search of PubMed reveals that the preference for the spelling Estrogens is even stronger in published scientific articles. In PubMed the search term ESTROGENS[Text Word] received 55,000 hits; the term OESTROGENS[Text Word] was far less preferred -- less than 4,000 hits.

The current articles odd use of a minority spelling throws off the flow of the article, as it is jarring to most readers. Moreover, it is flagged by the Firefox spell checker (and Microsoft Word's) as incorrect. The current article's preference of the uncommon addition of the superfluous initial silent "o" undercuts the perceived authority of the article, particularly when this spelling will be perceived by many as a spelling error (and by the better-informed as an idiosyncratic preference for an unusual and archaic word form). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.69.40 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Agreed and moved. Strad 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The spelling used by all American scientific journals and scientists is estrogens, as well as estradiol, estriol, estrone, estrus, estrous, etc. The spelling used in the UK is oestrogens, oestradiol, oestriol, oestrone, oestrus, oestrous. The pronunciation differs between the US and UK with the US pronunciation using a short e as in get, and the UK pronunciation using a long e, as in beet.

osteoporosis and weight?

My professor says that the reason that slender postmenopausal women suffer more from osteoporosis is because they metabolize their fats more quickly which have absorbed estrogens throughout their development, and that this liberation of fats is more effective in keeping large ladies healthy. I cannot find any sources to verify this. does anyone know?217.149.148.54 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Foods containing natural estrogen

A number of different foods and herbs are sources of natural plant estrogens, and can be very helpful during menopause, The following is a list of some of the best food sources of estrogen. These foods are also high in vitamins, minerals, fiber, and essential fatty acids, and they are low in saturated fat. In other words, they are nutritious and should be part of your diet on a regular basis.

list of estrogen sources

Alfalfa 

Animal flesh 
Anise seed  
Apples 
Baker's yeast  
Barley  
Beets  
Carrots  
Cherries 
Chickpeas 
Clover  
Cowpeas (black- eyed peas) 
Cucumbers  
Dairy Foods 
Dates 
Eggs 
Eggplant 
Fennel  
Flaxseeds  
Garlic  
Hops  
Licorice  
Oats  
Olive oil  
Olives  
Papaya  
Parsley 
Peas  
Peppers 
Plums  
Pomegranates 
Potatoes  
Pumpkin  
Red beans  
Red clover  
Rhubarb  
Rice  
Sage  
Sesame seeds  
Soybean sprouts  
Soybeans  
Split peas 
Sunflower seeds  
Tomatoes 
Wheat  
Yams

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CCLiCKK (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Bourbon and beer! Referrence is in phytoestrogens article.Pustelnik (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Estrogens in cosmetics

The article says (copy&paste): "Some hair shampoos on the market include estrogens and placental extracts; others contain phytoestrogens. There are case reports of young children developing breasts after exposure to these shampoos. [21] These products are especially popular with African-American consumers.[22][23]"

The way this is phrased would almost make one think that African-American consumers like these shampoos because they give young children breasts. I think there must be another reason why they prefer the shampoos. Perhaps because of another characteristic of the shampoo that is not described here, like being good for tightly curled hair or something - the estrogen effects being unfortunate side-effects. Olav L (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these products have been a real clinical problem in the past. Maybe we could avoid the problem by requiring "placental extract" to be referred to as "ground up afterbirths". I changed the wording to refer to marketing, rather than consumer popularity. Does that work? Pustelnik (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand these products can be a problem and I certainly believe you if you say they actually were. But I still don't understand why any kind of shampoo should contain "estrogens and placental extracts". Or why these products should be marketed to (and/or be popular with) black people. I mean, what are these shampoos actually supposed to do and why only for black people? Olav L (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Functions

Doesn't citation [15] in Medical Applications, http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/160/10/1013, regarding estrogen as a height attenuation treatment contradict the statement about estrogen's role in "accelerating height growth" under the heading 'Functions'? I'm no scientist, just a sucker for logic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cordof3 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)cordof3

Thanks for pointing out the logical inconsistency. I have changed the wording from accelerate to decelerate, although I am not sure that the later is the best term to use. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would sort of make sense. Doesn't the word "attenuate" work as well here as it does later on in the article? Thanks for responding.Cordof3 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Cordof3

Reduce bowel motility?

Huh? I don't quite understand. Can anyone please explain what it is? Thank you. --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Prostate cancer???

Estrogens do not helps to avoid prostate cancer. Recent studies stataing that estrogens can cause prostate cancer--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

MTF HRT Health Facts

Nothing but a passing mention in the introduction about the very common off-label use of estrogens for male to female sex reassignment and the possible health risks. Despite a lack of good studies in this department, something should at least be noted regarding it. 98.199.158.46 (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence shows Wyeth acted with reckless disregard to the risk of injury to women in marketing dangerous PremPro

Evidence shows that Wyeth knew the dangers of Prempro (Premarin plus Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) but marketed it in reckless disregard for the risks to the women who received it.


Another Loss for Pfizer in Drug Suits

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/business/24wyeth.html?fta=y

By DUFF WILSON

Published: November 23, 2009


"... On Monday a jury in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court awarded $28 million in punitive damages to Donna Kendall of Decatur, Ill., whose breast cancer was found after she had taken hormone drugs for 11 years. The jury had already given her $6.3 million in compensatory damages.
Punitive damages in Pennsylvania require a finding of “wanton and reckless” conduct. The jurors heard testimony that Wyeth paid consultants and ghostwriters of medical journal articles to play down concerns about breast cancer, as well as testimony that Pharmacia did not study known risks. The punitive award was split $16 million for Wyeth and $12 million for Pharmacia.
After that ruling was made public, Sandra M. Moss, the judge who leads the complex litigation program at the Philadelphia court, unsealed a $75 million punitive damage award from last month in a case brought against Wyeth by Connie Barton of Peoria, Ill. She was also awarded $3.7 million in compensatory damages previously made public."


"... Esther E. Berezofsky, a lawyer for one of the women who won the awards in Philadelphia said Monday, 'This is just the tip of the iceberg.'
She said that in cases that had reached jury judgments, women with breast cancer had won damages in 10 of the 12 hormone drug cases, although many are on appeal. Ms. Berezofsky also said a federal appeals court decision in St. Louis this month had significantly improved plaintiffs’ chances of receiving punitive damages and winning appeals.
In that decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned an award of $27 million for an Arkansas woman, citing improper testimony by an expert witness. But the court ordered a new trial on punitive damages. The judges’ ruling said 'there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that Wyeth acted with reckless disregard to the risk of injury.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.214 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of structure to congugated equine estrogen

I added a sentence to the Estrogen structural formula info box, "This is contrasted with a single double bonded oxygen in the Premarin (conjugated equine estrogen) molecule". Is there any evidence that the differences in the molecules (the oxygen vs. two -OH in the D ring, and a single bond instead of a double bond in the B ring) makes a difference in receptor affinity or is otherwise biologically significant. My biochem knowledge is nil.

It is my understanding that Premarin is not a single chemical substance but rather a complex mixture of estrogen metabolites some of which are conjugated. Also I am not sure what you mean by a "single double bond oxygen". Do you mean a ketone such as the 17-keto group in estrone? Differences in the oxidation state of the D-ring can have a significant effect on affinity for the estrogen receptor and in addition can effect the elimination half-life of the hormone. The affinity difference between having a single and double bond in the B-ring is probably less pronounced. Boghog (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, after reading the Premarin article more carefully, it appears that the major component of Premarin is sulfated estrone. Also I believe that there is no double bond in the B-ring. Hence the difference between estradiol, the most potent form of the hormone, and the major component of Premarin is that the C17 hydroxyl group has been oxidized to a ketone and the 3-hydroxyl group has been sulfated. Sulfation of the C3 phenol will destroy the affinity of the hormone for ER. On the other hand, the sulfate group may be removed by hydrolysis (especially if taken orally) to release the free estrone. Estrone has about 1/50th the affinity for ER-alpha compared to estradiol (Bradbury et al., estradiol RBA = 100, estrone RBA = 2). In addition, estrone can be reduced by 17β-HSD to produce estradiol. Finally, there are other estrogen metabolites in Premarin, many of which may have higher affinity for the estrogen receptor compared to estrone. Boghog (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsustained statement

Function

  • Structural
  • reduce muscle mass

Reference, please! In case of having been quoted from a print book, the primary source backing up that statement in the book. Thanks. Eyesighter (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[Citation Needed] Added

I've added the Citation needed template. Sweyn78 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

British or American English?

This article mixes British and American English. I don't have any preference, but since the title is "Estrogen", I think it's easier to use American English. Any opinions? --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What ever spelling is used, it should of course be consistent throughout the article. As I previously argued here:
The preferred spelling by following three international scientific organizations is "estrogen":
Please note in particular:

In addition to nomenclature guidelines, the IUPAC sets standards for international spelling in the event of a dispute; for example, it ruled that aluminium is preferable to the American aluminum and American sulfur is preferable to the British sulphur.

Hence I think the spelling in this article should conform to the international scientific standard "estrogen". Boghog (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When the Estrogen Drops, An Egg Drops

I noticed the origin of the word "estrogen" but I think it is worth noting the irony of the situation: After PMS, estrogen is reduced in the body and an egg is released into the womb - and during this time, women tend (TEND, I'm sure other women work different) to become more "cuddly" and ready to accept sex. Is it ironic that while estrogen means desire producer, there's more sexual desire when there's less estrogen? Kyoobur9000 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

is blaming women really necessary in the 'environmental effects' section?

Anyone editing this article should know that ALL HUMANS possess and use estrogen and saying that it is 'excreted by women' is pretty damn misleading because everyone excretes it. Also new evidence is suggesting that birth control accounts for less than 1% of the estrogens found in our water, and large animal farms whose runoff is not treated are really to blame. Suggesting the intersex fish are caused by birth control is an old pro life anti-birth control scheme that just blames the pill for an environmental problem. (Check out their website, does this bogus stuff really belong in this article? http://www.thepillkills.com/talkingpoints.php)

Here's a legit source, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i44/8844news4.html , that suggests where estrogen pollution really comes from. Can we edit this section or remove it asap? I don't think wikipedia has any business pushing an anti-birth control agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.36.55 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointing the problem in Estrogen#Environmental_effects section. Per your suggestion, I have replaced "women and birth control pills" with "humans and farm animals" and added the C&E News citation. I hope corrects the problem. Please feel free to make further edits. Boghog (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
At what level should the contribution of oral contraceptives to drinking water be considered not a problem? You refer to this article: Wise A, O’Brien K and T Woodruff. Critical Review: “Are Oral Contraceptives a Significant Contributor to the Estrogenicity of Drinking Water?” Environmental Science and Technology 2011; 45(1): 51–60. The figure quoted of 1% is accurate - but when the numbers are normalized to account for different potencies (E2 vs E1 vs E3 vs EE2), birth control pills actually account for 14% of the estrogen in water. This comes straight from the paper. Wouldn't this - in combination with the fact that birth control pills do have a slightly different chemical structure than naturally occuring estrogens - suggest that further research is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.230.226 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Another way of looking at this is that even if the environmental effects of estrogens from birth control pills were completely eliminated, this would amount to only a 14% reduction in the exposure after correcting for the difference in potencies of the various estrogens. If farm run off could somehow be treated to remove estrogens, this would result in a much larger reduction. Boghog (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Only if you take Wise et al.'s potency number at face value. Are we concerned with the relative potency of estrogen on fish? Or in the lab? Or in rats? Remember, we can't actually do tests on humans. If you're a rainbow trout in one of the studies referenced by Wise (Thorpe et al.), EE2 was found to have between 11 to 27 times the effect of E2. This study (not referenced by Wise's paper) - Dissociation of estrogen-induced uterine growth and ornithine decarboxylase activity in the postnatal rat - shows that EE2 is 80 time more potent than E2 in increasing uterine weight for young rats, but is equipotent to E2 by the time the rats are adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.56.158 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fetal Development" Off-Topic?

"As a result, the utility of rodent models for studying human psychosexual differentiation has been questioned.[4]" This conclusion-sentence makes the paragraph feel off-topic. Any ideas on how to fix this?

Sweyn78 (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Somatotypology?

Hello! I was reading this article when I came-across what appears to be an inaccurate statement:

== Function ==
*Structural
** [[Somatotype|morphic]] change ([[Somatotype|endomorphic]] -> [[mesomorphic]] -> [[ectomorphic]])

Not only does the article linked-to by that cite Somatotypology (in this context) as a pseudoscience from the 1950's, but it is commonly accepted (at least from what all I've seen (and I've seen more than a little about Estrogen)) that Estrogen causes one to gain fat, not lose it, thus making the proposed Endo->Meso->Ecto change false, and if such a thing is generally taking place, it is likely due to societal factors, not estrogenic ones. Furthermore, the line is not sourced (and I've added the [Citation needed] template).

I would propose that the line "** [[Somatotype|morphic]] change ([[Somatotype|endomorphic]] -> [[mesomorphic]] -> [[ectomorphic]])" be removed from the article.

Sweyn78 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On Second Thought

Given that the same section lists "Increase fat stores" as an effect, there is a large contradiction, and so I am removing the "Morphic change" point. Sweyn78 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estrogen/Archive_1&oldid=1145896491"