Template:Did you know nominations/Histamine N-methyltransferase

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Histamine N-methyltransferase

(

)

... that histamine N-methyltransferase enzyme regulates essential brain functions and sleep-wake cycles in humans? Yoshikawa T, Yanai K (September 2016). "Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain". Handb Exp Pharmacol. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. 241: 173–187. doi:10.1007/164_2016_13. ISBN 978-3-319-58192-7. PMID 27679412.
- ALT1: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase is the only enzyme in the human body responsible for metabolizing histamine within the central nervous system, playing a crucial role in brain function? Yoshikawa T, Yanai K (September 2016). "Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain". Handb Exp Pharmacol. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. 241: 173–187. doi:10.1007/164_2016_13. ISBN 978-3-319-58192-7. PMID 27679412.
- ALT2: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase plays a crucial role in sleep-wake cycles as the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the human central nervous system? Yoshikawa T, Yanai K (September 2016). "Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain". Handb Exp Pharmacol. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. 241: 173–187. doi:10.1007/164_2016_13. ISBN 978-3-319-58192-7. PMID 27679412.
- ALT3: ... that histamine N-methyltransferase is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, and its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions? Yoshikawa T, Yanai K (September 2016). "Histamine Clearance Through Polyspecific Transporters in the Brain". Handb Exp Pharmacol. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. 241: 173–187. doi:10.1007/164_2016_13. ISBN 978-3-319-58192-7. PMID 27679412.

- Reviewed:
- Comment: This is my very first DYK nomination. User:Sammi Brie: since you are the DYK expert, if you have suggestions, or you noticed that I did something wrong, please help.

Improved to Good Article status by Maxim Masiutin (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC).

I struck ALT2 as it is too long (318 characters). ALT1 is 198, near the limit of 200. By the way, Maxim Masiutin, the source you should link to in a DYK nomination is the cited reference in the article for the hook fact. I can't review since I handled the GA nomination, but I wanted to flag those two things. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 could perhaps be streamlined a bit more to "... plays a crucial role in sleep-wake cycles as the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the human central nervous system?" JoelleJay (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the new sources, I would definitely advise against citing Scientific Reports or Frontiers for this, especially the former as it is also a primary source. Per MEDRS we should reflect what secondary review sources say on a topic, and I think for statements made in wikivoice in a high-profile venue we need much more reputable sources than Sci Rep and Frontiers. They can still be used in the article, but ought to be accompanied by additional supporting sources. This Physiological Reviews article could serve as a replacement for the claim that it's the only neuronal enzyme degrading histamine, while this Sleep review touches on HNMT's role in aggression and indirectly on sleep. The Handbook cited in ALT4 also works for all of these claims (though a lot of the HNMT info is just the authors reviewing their own work; not necessarily a problem, but something to keep in mind). Note that the first two state it is acting in the extracellular space, which is in contrast to the mechanism put forth in the last. Regarding ALT4, this could easily be read as "HNMT is the only enzyme in the brain that maintains arousal and sleep functions, which it does by degrading histamine", which is incorrect, rather than "HNMT is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, AND its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions". JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please let me explain on why I don't agree with your statement that the cited study is a primary study for the claim it backs up. For that particular claim, it is a secondary source. This is not a primary source for the particular claim that "(HNMT) is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, and its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions". This source makes synthesis what already was known about HNMT in its introductory statements. It is not the source that figured out that "(HNMT) is the only histamine-metabolizing enzyme in the brain, and its activity helps maintain arousal and sleep functions". It may be a primary sources for the other claims which were the subject of the study of this publication, but not for the quoted claim. Let me give you another example. Consider a study on whether ketotifen increases appetite in mice that claims that ketotifen is an antihistamine. For the claim that ketotifen is an antihistamine medication, that study is is a secondary. For the claim that ketotifen increased appetite on mice, it is a primary sources. Frequently, research research articles such as invitro studies or animal model studies give some synthesis on earlier research for some introductory statements, making them secondary research for that statement. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed the sources as you suggested. I removed sources that the plugin marks by yellow background and found a source that the plugin doesn't mark as yellow. It marked MDPI publications yellow, but didn't mark the Springer book yellow.

Maxim Masiutin: Please respond to the above. This is technically the oldest unreviewed nom, so I would otherwise review it, except I know virtually nothing about WP:MEDRS and refs 7, 8, 11, 18, 20, 32, 39, 40, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63 all come up yellow on WP:UPSD.--Laun chba ller 15:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer: I have a plugin that shows them yellow too, I don't know why it shows this way. The sources are fully WP:MEDRS. These requirements are not that complicated, essentially, the source should not be primary, it should be at least secondary, i.e. the source that mentions source rather than the source mentions the information. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

All the MDPI links should be axed; it is not considered a reliable publisher. Frontiers journals should also not be cited, although they're somewhat less problematic. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the MPDI links from this template, but if you mean that I should remove all MDPI links from the HNMT article for it to qualify for DYK, otherwise my DYK nomination will fail, I will regret about it, I didn't know that MPDI source prevents an article from be a DYK. I used MPDI articles that are in compliance with WP:MEDRS, they are also indexed in PubMed. I also use MPDI with care, for example, I didn't quote a health claim or something extraordinary from MDPI, only some undisputed pieces of general information, that MDPI quoted from other sources which are very reliable. For example, I used MDPI to support the statement that "HNMT does not have promoter cis-elements, such as TATA and CAAT boxes". The MDPI article has the following statement (quote): "Its gene is poorly characterized and lacks canonical promoter cis-elements such as TATA and CAAT boxes" that it cites from Reyes-Palomares, Armando; Montañez, Raúl; Sánchez-Jiménez, Francisca; Medina, Miguel Ángel (4 August 2011). "A combined model of hepatic polyamine and sulfur amino acid metabolism to analyze S-adenosyl methionine availability". Amino Acids. 42 (2–3): 597–610. doi:10.1007/s00726-011-1035-7. PMID 21814788.. If you noticed a particular MDPI reference that falls of this principle, please let me know. Still, I would be unable to remove all linkst to MDPI for the reasons I mentioned. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you wish, I can augment references to MDPI with references to the sources that they cite, but keeping only these sources as a replacement for MDPI should not be sufficient due to the rules of WP:MEDRS, formally.Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

MDPI is listed as "questionably reliable" on RSP, and so doesn't meet the high quality requirements of MEDRS. It's unfortunate this was not brought up during the GA. Anything that is "general knowledge" should easily be citable to non-MDPI secondary sources. I'm more concerned with the MDPI journal Int J Mol Sci cited 16 times... JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, how do I tell these at a glance?--Laun chba ller 05:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The citation script will highlight them yellow, and also the journals often have single-word pluralized titles like "Catalysts" or "Biomolecules" so when I come across journals with that theme I check the publisher. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer: I nominated DYK based on the recent GA review, I didn't add any new source since the GA review, and the GA review should also follow WP:MEDRS - the completion that the article fullfilled and the condition verified by the GA reviewer. This is my understanding of the situation. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer: I have nominated several articles in the past for GA, some passed, and I have done some GA reviews in the past. As for the DYK, this is my first ever DYK nomination. I don't yet fully understand the DYK process. Therefore, I will did some techincal errors in the DYK, please help me resolve them. Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You do only have to ping me once. I'll review this properly in the morning.--Laun chba ller 22:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I replied to the initial objection as you suggested, thank you again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. ALTs 0-3 cited, short enough, and interesting, however all four should lose "(HNMT)" per WP:DYK200, and I'd expect a more merciless prepbuilder to truncate ALT1 at "system". Article is devoid of maintenance templates and neutrality issues. Is there another way of writing "In mammals, histamine is metabolized by two major pathways"?--Laun chba ller 07:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I rewritten the sentence that starts with "In mammals, histamine is metabolized by two major pathways" the following way: "In mammals, there are two main ways to inactivate histamine by metabolism: one is through a process called oxidative deamination, which involves the enzyme diamine oxidase (DAO) produced by the AOC1 gene, and the other is through a process called N^τ-methylation, which involves the enzyme N-methyltransferase. In the context of biochemistry, inactivation by metabolism refers to the process where a substance, such as a hormone, is converted into a form that is no longer active or effective (inactivation), via a process where the substance is chemically altered (metabolism)." Did I understand correctly your concern about this sentence and addressed your concern adequately? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You also mentioned lengths. Can you please help me and modify the sentences to fit the length where it violated the length limitations? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Please give me one day to address current issue raised. I wanted to resolve them yesterday, but didn't manage to do that, sorry for the delayed answer, just give me one day please. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. Make sure you remedy both mine and JoelleJay's concerns.--Laun chba ller 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I addressed all the issues mentioned except removal of links to journals published by the MDPI publisher. I gave reasons. If you still think that links to all MDPI journals should be removed, could you please request a second opinion from a editor with Wikipedia medical sources experience? However, the other editors of Wikipedia medical articles thought that I am competent enough in sourcing, and they appreciated it via barnstars, see my user page for those barnstars. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Still, I am new to DYK and your help in any form will be appreciated by me, and it will definitely be helpful for potential readers; for example, if you could suggest a better ALT or let me know how can I further improve the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you will agree on my proposal to ask opinions on capable editors on sourcing, I can suggest several candidates. Just let me know how to proceed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Article length is fine and hook length is fine, they just can't have "(HNMT)" or any contents in brackets in them, and my copyright concerns are resolved. (If I was feeling particularly Bolshie, I might reword the hooks so that the article would be linked via "the only enzyme in the human body responsible for metabolizing histamine" or similar, therefore taking the title out of the hook, but that is absolutely not essential.) I could be wrong on this, so pinging JoelleJay to double check, but if my understanding is correct, then articles in predatory journals are self-published, and should not be used for almost all claims.--Laun chba ller 06:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There are no articles in predatory journals cited in HNMT. If you could point a particular cite, please let me know ASAP. By predatory journals I mean journals listed at least one of the following: (1) Template:Predatory open access source list; (2) Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. The script User:Headbomb/unreliable.js uses yellow background for the sources that this script considers "borderline", i.e. as defined by [1] is "situated at or near a border", but in a good set, i.e. is compliant to WP:MEDRS. Still, if there are a few source that raise your concern, I can address them one-by-one, but I don't think that finding alternative sources for all MDPI articles is appropriate just because the script considers them "borderline". The Wikipedia article MDPI mentions: MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[25][26] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[23][25] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[27] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Index for lack of rigor and possible predatory practices.[28][29][30] This Wikipedia article has a detailed discussion on what MDPI is, but it is in no way currently predatory.Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong about articles published in MDPI: each case needs to be judged on their merit. Other journals are more dangerous. MDPI journals may publish research which is less novel and ground-breaking, or in other words more suitable as source for introductory text on a topic. In the specific case, I see that Nutrients articles are cited in support of a rather mild statement that «It is presumed by some scholars [...] the most affected organs are [...]», so it's not a case of extraordinary sources being needed. If we look at the first authors, we see for example an associate professor at the University of Padua. There's no reason to outright discard such a source. The sentence in the DYK snippet should not be attributed to doi:10.1007/164_2016_13 («Brain histamine plays a role in diverse physiological functions such as anxiety, sleep-wake cycles, appetite, and learning and memory (Haas et al. 2008)»), but to the source they attribute this statement to, i.e. doi:10.1152/physrev.00043.2007 (also archived). Note that some of the sources for very similar statements, like doi:10.3390/ijms2003073, are actually referring to the brain of mice, so when replacing sources better check that the new source actually supports the statement, or we end up doing original synthesis which is a far worse problem that the hypothetical issues with one publisher. Nemo 17:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Nutrients is among the MDPI titles that have been specifically called out as unreliable. See e.g. the mass editor resignations due to acceptance of poor articles, ongoing accusations of unethical practices leading to a boycott by 1100 professionals, lack of rigor in validating CoIs... The tide in the last few RSP discussions about MDPI has also been strongly on the side of avoiding their titles as much as possible. I still think these citations should be replaced, though I don't know if that's a requirement for DYK. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... now I see this isn't the first time you've advocated on behalf of MDPI against the strong general sentiment at RSP and WikiProject Medicine that the publisher has major problems and shouldn't be cited... JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, JoelleJay, for the detailed explanation, your arguments definitely make sence. Even if I may disagree with you on some points, I think it would be better to remove all links to Nutrients from the HNMT article, because it is always better to spend time in replacing bad sources with good or act as a "Wikipedia exclusionist" than spend time arguing :-) -- if we are not time-bound, give me a few time to get rid of Nutrients, as other editors may later point attention to Nutrients again, so better prevent troubles Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we are not time bound, let me try to get rid of all "yellow" sources as shown by the script, but it may be a challenge Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I can help with the source replacements -- I added a couple alternatives today, some of which might be usable for the other MDPI citations. Thanks for understanding my concerns! JoelleJay (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions at [2], I saw them, but haven't read your message back then, so I hope I already removed all the "yellow" sources as displayed by the script. Let me check the other articles to which I contributed, I will try to remove yellow sources there as well; let us also wait what the other editors think about the HNMT article if they eventually provide any feedback, that's where you help may be needed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to your feedback, I've revised the article. I've included superior sources to substantiate the claim that the brain, liver, and bronchial mucous membrane are the most impacted organs due to defective HNMT activity. I've also made more obvious that the references to the MDPI Nutrients journal were not used to back up particular conclusion on health, but to illustrate the views of certain scholars. These scholars, as cited in Nutrients, propose that adverse reactions to dietary histamine could be classified as a distinct medical condition, termed "histamine intolerance". While mainstream medicine does not recognize this as a separate condition, there is consensus among all scholars and practitioners that such reactions can result in symptoms like itching and flushing. The citation of Nutrients was intended to highlight this ongoing academic discussion. The term "histamine intolerance" is used in mainstream media, so I thought it is important to explain what is it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of the use of the term "histamine intolerance" in mainstream media: [3]. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed all links to MDPI; they have open access text which referred the same sources are more trustworthy but paywalled sources available via a library susbscription of by payment. If you cannot get access to some of these sources and like to access the context for the purpose of the DYK review, please let me know so I could send you relevant snippets via WikiPedia email. I also rewritten for clarity the section on histamine intolerance. I you think that there left some other parts to rewrite, let me know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I done everything to address the issues raised so far. What do you think? Is there any action required from me so far? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Laun chba ller 16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)