Talk:Naphyrone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

O-2482 is typical of a label initially given to a new compound before it gains a name. I don't see it being used beyond the initial research paper. I think NRG-1 or naphyrone would be more appropriate, and there should be some more sources appearing over the next few days to help us decide. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naphyrone seems like it would be best IMO. NRG-1 would seem to be a brand name. Smartse (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does NRG-1 redirect here? It's the name of a legal high sold online, not identified as naphyrone and only suspected to be such. Adenylated (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article identify it as such --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology[edit]

This data is from the paper cited:

  • DAT Ki(nM) = 20.1±7.1
  • D uptake(IC50) = 40.0±13
  • DRb = 1.99
  • SERT Ki(nM) = 33.1±1.1
  • SER uptake(IC50) = 46.0±5.5
  • NET Ki(nM) = 136±27
  • NE uptake(IC50) = 11.7±0.9

Other info: One notable exception to this selectivity is the naphthyl analogue 4t, which binds to all three transporters and inhibits reuptake at the nanomolar potency range. Only two compounds (4t and 4u) manifested SERT Ki values of <200 nM. The naphthyl analogue 4t inhibited SERTs with modest potency (Ki = 33.1 nM), and the high lipophilicity of this compound (c log P = 4.77) may be partially responsible for this potency. However, the lipophilic dichlorophenyl analogue 4u (c log P = 5.01) manifested a lesser SERT potency (Ki = 199 nM). Therefore, lipophilicity was likely not the only factor that determined the potency for 4t. Two compounds (4o, which was a selective DAT inhibitor and 4t, which had similar potency at the DAT and SERT) were selected for evaluation of locomotor activity. Both manifested a time- and dose-dependent stimulation of locomotor activity (ED50 = 0.21 mg/kg and 2.2 mg/kg, respectively) with a duration of action of >8 h.

I would add this info to the article but my knowledge of pharmacology is crap so it would be better if someone else could digest this and turn it into something that people might understand. It sounds like a pretty unusual compound... Smartse (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage[edit]

This page needs some information on dosage as well as references to support this, maybe from erowid or elsewhere, the chemical is highly dangerous when taken wrecklessly without first knowing the low doses which it must be taken in to avoid adverse effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.129.158 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually human trial reports of genuine naphyrone posted on Hyperlab.info suggest it is fairly weak, with 50-100mg needed for a strong dose. Seeing as the study reported in the British Medical Journal found that only one in ten samples of "NRG-1" tested actually contained naphyrone, it seems likely that the internet rumours of extreme potency resulted from users purchasing some other mixture of compounds sold as "NRG-1", but which was not in fact naphyrone. Something like MDPV mixed with desoxypipradrol would fit the reported effects profile. It is somewhat ironic that the ACMD appears to have based their July 2010 "Consideration of the naphthylpyrovalerone analogues and related compounds" largely on internet rumour and speculation from people who had probably not even received the correct compound, so much for evidence based policy making! Meodipt (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status[edit]

I added in the results of a recent batch analysis that highlighted at least one sample of what was labelled NRG-1 actually contained MDPV, which is a Class B substance. However I am not sure if the tone of my addition is encyclopeadic enough, and I am doing this at work so don't have time to labour over the language I used- so if someone wants to improve on my efforts feel free!Rednotdead (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the info, now that a published scientific study has found the same thing I think it should be removed. The link is also only available to those who have registered on the forum so it isn't an ideal reference. Smartse (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

Based on the lab analysis of NRG-1, I suggest that we create a separate article for NRG-1 and explain there what is in it. It's not accurate to have it redirect here when only 10% of products branded as it, actually contain it. Smartse (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sure, maybe 10% of products sold as NRG-1 contain naphyrone, but many products sold as "ecstasy" don't contain MDMA. The key questions are "is NRG1 a common name for naphyrone?" and "is NRG1 sold as containing anything other than naphyrone?". I'm not sure what the answer to the second question is, but I'm not aware of any sources claiming any other drug is sold as NRG1. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the fact that you can't buy ecstasy on the internet means that you're never knowing to really know what's in it, whereas NRG-1 can be tested. I'm not sure that "NRG1 a common name for naphyrone" - NRG-1 is essentially a brand or product name - it doesn't matter what sellers say it is, as reliable sources say differently. My point is that it is inaccurate for the article to say "NRG-1 is a drug derived from pyrovalerone that acts as a triple reuptake inhibitor,[2] producing stimulant effects and has been reported as a novel designer drug" because we have a source that says that 90% of the time this is incorrect. Likewise, because of this Naphyrone#Use_in_the_United_Kingdom isn't really talking about naphyrone, but NRG-1. That's why I think it would be better to have two articles, this one can concentrate on what is actually known about naphyrone and the other can discuss what is claimed to be in NRG-1 (naphyrone) and what has been found in it. It's not a primary concern but we should think about readers who look at our articles before taking these drugs and realise that as one of the few accessible and reliable sources of information on them we should try to be as accurate as possible in the way we discuss them. Smartse (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that MDMA was briefly split into a seperate page from Ecstasy (drug) (which is now a redirect, but check the history) for exactly the reasons outlined above (i.e. that the majority of "ecstasy" pills sold now days do not actually contain any MDMA). This was reverted largely because of a lack of consensus for the split, but the point was made that the public perception remains that "Ecstasy = MDMA" despite this not accurately reflecting the current situation. With naphyrone / NRG-1 there is perhaps a stronger argument for a split due to the fact that there was never any time when the majority of NRG-1 actually contained naphyrone (in contrast to Ecstasy pills, which for many years did genuinely contain MDMA as the primary, if not sole active ingredient, as verified by pill testing services). I would argue against a split, mainly because there is already a page for the actual NRG1 (i.e. the neuregulin 1 protein) so this would be very confusing to make a similarly named page for what is effectively a brand name for "random cathinone derivative mix". It should be emphasised more strongly however that the vast majority of what has been sold online as "NRG-1" is not naphyrone, and does not even have substantially similar effects to actual naphyrone, as there seems to be a great deal of confusion about this among both the general public and supposed drug experts!! Meodipt (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naphyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naphyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naphyrone&oldid=1199580561"