Talk:Luteolin

Contradiction with Alpha-glucosidase

The Alpha-glucosidase page (under the section titled disease relevance) suggests that Luteolin is an Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, which should slow the conversion of complex carbohydrates into simple monosaccharides which can be absorbed in the small intestine. To me, this suggests that Luteolin inhibits carbohydrate metabolism, however, in the introduction on this page, is it said to promote carbohydrate metabolism. Which statement is correct? I am not a biochemist, but these two pages seem to contradict one another. Elesueur (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of luteolin is wrong --Kupirijo 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is currently correct. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "MannSecondaryMetabolism" :
  • {{cite book | last = Mann | first = John | title = Secondary Metabolism (2nd. ed.) | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | date = 1992 | location = Oxford, UK | pages = 279-280 | isbn = 0-19-855529-6}}
  • {{cite book | last = Mann }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________

Side Effects

Luteolin is a PDE1 through PDE5 inhibitor

But mostly luteolin is a PDE4 Inhibitor see: Phosphodiesterase inhibitor

Luteolin side effects might include erection and have difficulty to breath or swallow.
Taking Luteolin you might possibly choke to death if you have Asthma.

Please See Study and Reference I cited:

Eur J Pharmacol. 2009 Oct 22. [Epub ahead of print] Luteolin, a non-selective competitive inhibitor of phosphodiesterases 1-5, displaced [(3)H]-rolipram from high-affinity rolipram binding sites and reversed xylazine/ketamine-induced anesthesia. Yu MC, Chen JH, Lai CY, Han CY, Ko WC.

Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Municipal Wan-Fang Hospital, Taiwan. The aim of the present study was to investigate the mode of action of luteolin on phisphodiesterase (PDE) 1-5, and the possible adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, and gastric hypersecretion, determined by replacing [(3)H]-rolipram binding and reversing xylazine/ketamine-induced anesthesia. The reversing effect was reported to occur through a presynaptic alpha(2)-adrenoceptor inhibition and trigger vomiting in ferrets. In contrast, clonidine, an alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonist, prevented emesis induced by PDE4 inhibitors in ferrets. According to the Lineweaver-Burk analysis, luteolin (3-30muM) competitively inhibited PDE1-5 activities, with K(i) values of 15.0, 6.4, 13.9, 11.1, and 9.5muM, respectively, which did not significantly differ from each other. The equilibrium dissociation constant (K(d)) and maximal density (B(max)) for [(3)H]-rolipram binding at high-affinity rolipram binding sites of guinea pig brain cell membranes were 10.1nM and 3.7pmol/g of tissue, respectively. The EC(50) (PDE4(H)) values of luteolin and Ro 20-1724, a selective PDE4 inhibitor, for displacing 2nM [(3)H]-rolipram binding were 11.2muM and 45.6nM, respectively. The therapeutic (PDE4(H)/PDE4(L)) ratios of luteolin and Ro 20-1724 were calculated to be 0.6, and 0.004, respectively. Both luteolin (10-30mumol/kg, s.c.) and Ro 20-1724 (0.1-1mumol/kg, s.c.) significantly reversed the xylazine/ketamine-induced anesthesia in mice. Although luteolin non-selectively and competitively inhibited PDE1-5, only PDE4 inhibition contributed to a reversing effect. In conclusion, because of the low therapeutic (PDE4(H)/PDE4(L)) ratio of luteolin, the gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting and gastric hypersecretion should be carefully monitored, whenever luteolin is used for treating allergies, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PMID: 19853596

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19853596

Bixbyte (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

"Luteolin side effects might include erection and have difficulty to breath or swallow".

You call erection a side effect? Most men want more erections. Probably requires a huge dose? 91.155.24.127 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

Clinical trials - antinflammatory, microglia modulator

Could mention the clinical trials and the stated reasoning behind them ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do plants make it, what effect in animals that eat those plants

What is written about its function in plants, and its absorption, digestion and biochemistry in mammals ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Pharmacology

There's quite a bit of research on the pharmacology of luteoin, and related quercetin, in humans. Of particular interest to the public, luteolin is a potent endocrine disruptor. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23836117/ Ccroberts @ 22:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ccroberts! The policy is to use reviews and not primary sources. Looks like your cited article is not a review but a primary source, which are not considered strong enough for Wikipedia in terms of the reliability of their information. Cheers, --CopperKettle (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The review literature on luteolin is plainly weak and in unreliable journals. It would be hard to justify why a section on pharmacology would be informative for the general encyclopedia user. Zefr (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Addition of Summarized Research

Hello, I recently added content summarizing peer-reviewed reviews about luteolin’s biological and pharmacological properties, including its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and preclinical metabolic effects. I understand concerns about WP:MEDRS and appreciate the importance of maintaining high sourcing standards. If appropriate, I’d be glad to prepare a much shorter version that:

- Relies exclusively on high-quality secondary sources (e.g., López-Lázaro 2009, Shaik et al. 2024).

- Clearly labels all findings as preclinical or experimental.

- Avoids any mention of treatment or health claims in humans.

Please let me know if you have any preferences or guidance. Thanks very much for your time and help. Potentialmotion (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue behind reverting your edit is more about what is encyclopedic and not reporting what would be found in a journal; see WP:NOTJOURNAL #6,7. "High-quality secondary sources" or "experimental findings" are not from the clinical review literature - WP:MEDASSESS, top of pyramids, which is the underlying guide for choosing references for medical content.

Low journal quality, out-of-date sources (within 5 years), MDPI journals (predatory publishing), and lab research, WP:MEDANIMAL, are also concerns with the sources you chose. Zefr (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood—thanks very much for clarifying your position. I’ll hold off on further edits here until the metabolic and pharmacological research reaches the level of clinical evidence and consensus reviews necessary for inclusion. Given the breadth of preclinical findings on luteolin, I expect we’ll start to see more high-quality systematic reviews in the future, and I look forward to revisiting this when that happens. Thanks again for your time and guidance. Potentialmotion (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Update to the "Research" section (MEDRS-aligned)

I'm still learning how to apply WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS properly, so I’d appreciate feedback on whether the following draft meets the standard. My goal is to organize the section according to the evidence pyramid: starting with secondary reviews, then limited human data, and ending with a clear statement of uncertainty.

Proposed wording:

Research

Reviews have discussed luteolin’s biological activities across inflammatory and metabolic contexts.

An umbrella review summarized preclinical and limited clinical findings involving pathways such as NF-κB, PI3K/Akt, AMPK/mTOR, and Nrf2, which are central to inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular energy regulation. Reviews on human nutrition and pharmacokinetics have described luteolin’s low oral bioavailability, and human intervention reviews of artichoke leaf extract — a natural source of luteolin and chlorogenic acid — have summarized reductions in serum lipid markers in randomized trials.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a supplement containing luteolin and chlorogenic acid (Altilix®) reported changes in surrogate markers of liver fat, glycemic control, and vascular function in adults with metabolic syndrome, with similar results in a follow-up study of pre-obese adults.

The clinical relevance of these findings remains uncertain, and further independent systematic reviews are needed to confirm their significance.

I’ve kept the language descriptive and avoided any evaluative tone. If any of these sources seem too low in the hierarchy, or if the section still feels too detailed, I’d be happy to trim or simplify based on consensus. I greatly appreciate your assistance. Potentialmotion (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

References

None of these sources adheres to MEDRS nor would be suitable for the encyclopedia. 1) the Zhu ref is in an unreliable journal for clinical research; if it was a strong source, it would have been publishable in a reputable clinical journal. 2) the Hostetler ref identifies luteolin content in various herbs or foods, and acknowledges that flavonoids are so rapidly metabolized and excreted that they cannot be studied adequately in vivo. 3) this source is mainly about inulin (a notable component of artichokes; vague info on luteolin in the abstract). 4-5) these two refs are primary research unusable for an encyclopedia providing substantial scientific agreement on established facts, WP:MEDSCI. Luteolin and other flavonoids are unlikely to be defined as dietary factors with anti-disease effects because clinical research variables cannot be adequately controlled in dietary studies. Zefr (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Zefr — I really appreciate your detailed explanation of WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDSCI standards. I’ll hold off on expanding this section until stronger evidence becomes available. Your diligence in maintaining consistency with policy is sincerely appreciated. Potentialmotion (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)