Talk:Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1

RFC

The article entitled "Multiple Endocrine neoplasia type 1" contains a piece of wording that is not correct, or at least leads into confusion. The sentence says: "Pancreatic tumors usually form in the islet cells, which over secrete insulin, causing a decrease in blood glucose levels." This is only true for a subform of pancreatic tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, and only for one subtype of the latter, namely "insulinomas". The rest of pancreas tumors, be them pancreatic adenomas or be them neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs)such as PPomas, VIPomas, non functioning NETs, etc etc (up to some 12 or 14 types depending on the classification chosen), either do not impact insuline secretion since they are NOT necessarily placed in Langerhans cells -"islet tumors" is in fact a somewhat obsolete term for 5 or 7 years now- or indeed tend to cause hiperglycemia due to harm precisely in Langerhans islets, those producing insuline, the hormone that counteracts glucose levels in blood. In many cases such harm decreases insuline secretion. PNETs are divided into "functioning" (i.e, hormone producing, among which insuline is just one in one PNET type, insulinomas) and "non-functioning" tumours (which obviously do not secret insuline nor any other hormone).

Thus I suggest that this sentence in the otherwise very nice and rigorous article is reviewed.

Bibliographic references are many, including WHO, Wikipedia and many others. See Wikipedia description of PNETs, for instance. Thank you. Nicolas Gomez-Selles [email protected] 83.45.118.218 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas: You are free to edit the article directly and improve the problem sentence. Just go to the article Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and click the "Edit" button at the top, fix the sentence, and then "Save" the edit. That's all there is to it. --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Genetics sub

The genetics sub had three sentences in it that described MEN1 as following the knudson two-hit hypothesis, but didn't say anything about the hypothesis NOR did it state what the implications were for gene function. The actual function of MEN1 (and the protein product of this gene, menin) is not known. Thus, the genetics seem to imply that it is a tumor suppressor gene. However, this isn't 100% certain, the fact that it follows the two-hit-hypothesis puts it in line with MOST of the other tumor suppressor genes, and none of the oncogenes function in this fashion.

I added this information, but it doesn't "feel" right. I think the sub should be changed from "genetics" to "etiology" or "pathogenesis" and the wording could be played with slightly to make the appropriate point: That we don't know how MEN1 works, but we have some clues.

How this was originally written is not acceptable because there are currently 74 known tumor suppressor genes AND MOST behave identical to what is described here for MEN1 (and more to be discovered everyday). In general, the function of these genes is known. So, the insight that is obtained by saying more than "This is a tumor suppressor gene and follows the "two-hit hypothesis" that MOST tumor suppressor genes follow... the benefit is to say that the reason we think it's a tumor suppressor gene is because of the knudson hypothesis.

-- I know I'm slightly pedantic, and clear as mud. Forgive me. Tmbirkhead (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)