Talk:Glucose cycle

Untitled

This article is not correct. The glucose cycle refers to the glucose from a liver perspective only. I was going to attempt to edit this article into shape but in its present form it would be easier to start from scratch. The second paragraph, especially, is just gobbledygook. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article seems very poorly written and factually inaccurate, and is at the least a very glib assessment of the role glucose plays (glucose is a vital energy that our minds and bodies survive on... huh?). I was expecting something like Kreb's cycle. I support David's assessment that this should be rewritten in a more coherent, encyclopedic form. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the glucose cycle article is to provide a thorough overview of the complex chain of events occuring after glucose is ingested into the body and eventually dispelled. At present, the article is elementary, unprecise, and largely uninformative. Hence, it is crucial that other people add more specific details, such as how glucose relates to the Kreb's cycle (as suggested by Kinu above). I have never found a work that provided a full overview of the glucose cycle. Hence, the article on Wikipedia could be very useful to scholars investigating glucose. Please add to the page instead of deleting it. Other articles related to glucose are too scattered and, therefore, inadequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.175.71 (talk • contribs)

Well if that is your aim you have chosen the wrong name for the page. How about you start with an outline. David D. (Talk) 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way you cannot describe carbohydrates are glucose. They are polysaccarides. You also seem to be equating carbon dioxide as a form of glucose. You are not tracking glucose in this article but carbon molecules in carbohydrates. David D. (Talk) 18:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in its present form goes against common biochemical knowledge and should be deleted. The intended contents should be in the article about carbohydrate metabolism (which, by the way, is also very poor).   Andreas   ^(T) 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is becoming increasingly more precise and now is of some use, and therefore should be retained. The above suggestions are all reasonable. If the article refers more to carbohydrate metabolism than glucose metabolism, then perhaps the article should be linked to the carbohydrate metabolism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.182.217 (talk • contribs)

This page needs editing! Specifically, it states, "Glucose-6-phosphate is the product of glycogenolysis or gluconeogenesis, where the goal is to increase free glucose in the blood due body being in catabolic state. Other cells such as muscle and brain cells do not contain glucose 6-phosphatase. As a result, any glucose 6-phosphate produced in those cells is commited to cellular metabolic pathways (primarily pentose phosphate pathway or glycolysis)." This passage is confusing because it talks about G-6-phosphate in the liver in the first sentence, and then compares this to what's in the muscle and brain in the second sentence, but talks about g-6-phosphatese. Is g-6-phosphate the same thing as glucose-6-phosphatese? If not, then the comparison is mismatched and should be corrected. Likewise, the last sentence then goes on to talk about g-6-phosphate again, as if the preceding sentence had talked about g-6-phosphate as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.175.71 (talk • contribs)

Glucose 6-phosphate is the metabolite. Glucose 6-phosphatase is the enzyme that catalyses the reaction of glucose 6-phosphate to glucose. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right it is a mess at the moment. Maybe you can help make more sense out of it i don't have time right now. With regard to the Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency it is not effect the glucose cycle. This is a different metabolic pathway (pentose phosphate pathway) that involves G6P. David D. (Talk) 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!