Talk:Bradykinin

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article seems to have been copy-pasted from a different wiki — if you look at the names of the brazilian doctors you'll notice the question marks behind their names indicating the 'undefined article'-syntax of certain wikis. I wish people would cite their sources, especially when quoting an article verbatim. --TorArne 11:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is the work of Rsabbatini. If you wish to ask him, please do. I do happen to think he has written the same for other wikis. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm, I think that won't be neccessary. Heck, his user page is a citation in itself! Good stuff. --TorArne 19:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the references to the newer reference system, but now it appears that the references are duplicated in the auto-generated list.. that's strange. Slarson 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it should or could be worked into this article overall, but bradykinin has uses outside the classic physiological roles. It is inexpensive and commercially available, but more importantly it makes an excellent mass spectrometry standard due to its ionizing characteristics. Bradykinin has been used as a model peptide in many studies due to the reliability with which it can be seen and quantified on MS instrumentation. TheTweaker 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral problems

I would like to suggest that excess production of bradykinin and consequent vasodilation as a pathology, is a previouly undiscovered reason behind unexplained behavioral problems. In the article about the kinin-kallikrein system, it admits that "defects in this system are not yet recognized." Here is the exact quote "Defects of the kinin-kallikrein system in diseases are not generally recognized. The system is the subject of much research due to its relationship to the inflammation and blood pressure systems." I beleive that we need to start testing for bradykinin and kinins as part of a more integrated approach to health care and psychiatric care. Frequent and routine dysfunctin in bradykinin, facial flushing,and vasodilation can also cause neurological and behavioral problems that need to be recognized by the health communinity.Interestedperson (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Here is a very interesting article about bradykinin, rosacea, and neurological problems that support my theory. <http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/47845>[reply]

Please see WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quercetin

On another note, does anyone know if Quercetin would lower bradykinin? I'm not sure if that's technically a polyphenol.Interestedperson (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick look for abstracts and didn't find evidence of this. Possibly the reverse!? See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406213 Zarkme (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I believe this article could be inserted as a citation or external resource. It's dr. Ferreira's article on BPFs. I didn't manage to find dr. Rocha e Silva's article, but that would be another interesting addition to the page. I also fixed the following topic's title for clarity. --Monsieur.lefou (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammation

I think this page should indicate bradykinins role in inflammation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.134.197 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19

[1] Obviously not a medical source, but interesting and may lead to further info emerging. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm with this interesting paper describing the impact of "bradykinin storms" occuring during the COVID-19 at advanced stages of infection by SARS-V2;

https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63

At least this paper suggests that there already exists cost-effective treatments (which won't cure the infection but could dramatically reduce the "random effects and symtoms" observed everywhere in the body, all caused by "leaks" of various barriers in the body (notably the porosity of vessels in the lungs (fluids leaking inside small alveols), but as well the bradykynin causes an excess of production of various proteins (notably hyaluronic acid, forming an "hydrogel" in the lungs which can't be cured even with sufficient ventilation with high levels of oxygen insufflated: extracorporel ventilation becomes necessary as the lungs cease to be operational).

As well these leaks occur in the vesell-brain barrier. And the production bradykuyne is even increased by the virus in an attempt to increase the number of receptors outside those present in the nose and the superior respiratory system.

This paper also suggest some cost-effective treatments, like vitamin D supplementation, and various drugs which are already available. It also explains why COVID-19 is more letal for men than women, because of a protein regulating the production of bradykyne which is present only on chromosome X (women are less affected, with their two X chromosomes and a higher capacity to produce this bradykynin regulator).

It also explains why with COVID-19, blood pressure regulators should be avoided (and simple medications like aspirin, sold freely for simple headaches, should be avoided and why patients with hypertension should be treated with much more caution and alternatives to classic drugs (notably sport or physical activities, and food regulation). unfortunately, the recent measures taken by governments tend to remove the specific assistance for people with blood pressure problems.

Many doctors arould the world militate to say that COVID-19 is an illness whose main effet is on the vessels and natural barriers: the "bradykinin" storm is the final effect of these leaks occuring everywhere. verdy_p (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified as to why a reference to a perfectly good medical article (eLife 2020;9:e59177 doi: 10.7554/eLife.59177) that has been peer reviewed and was correctly referenced has been removed. Can the person who deleted it please explain? Carusus (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid section removal

I was lead here by recent developments re: Covid-19, and was disappointed to find no coverage of the recent studies. However, looking at the history, it seems that a substantial section on it was removed shortly before I viewed the page. The IP editor who did so said that the research was premature, but if this is a published, peer-reviewed paper, does it really warrant no mention? Some sort of information would be pertinent to include, surely. I am tempted to re-add the section, but I will refrain as this is very much not my area of expertise. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, having read this New Scientist article, I also came here to see how the medical expert editors had dealt with things, and was surprised to find no current content. The hypothesised role (good title) is now being reported by non-primary sources, so I would have expected to find some carefully-worded mention here. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]