Talk:Serotonin

Archives
Archive 1 (December 2004 → August 2009)

"Effects of serotonin deficiency"

I attempted to edit out the typos and grammatical problems with this section, but it is still weak. The lengthy discussion of the effects on newborn and maturing mice seems to go nowhere, and the last paragraph is really more of a list than a paragraph. I don't know about others, but I was fooled into thinking the subject of the paragraph was going to be the relation between serotonin and spiritual experience, but then it just sort of abruptly drops that line of thinking and goes on to depression, and then OCD. I didn't want to do a logic edit, because I haven't seen the sources, and it seems like more material is needed, or maybe a complete change of format. Anyway, I hope someone will take a stab at it. Leha Carpenter (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that low levels of serotonin may be associated with intense spiritual experiences is inconsistent with the article cited. The article in question discusses the relationship between binding potential of the 5HT1a receptor and individuals self reported level of religiosity. DrSparticle (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that line, which was sourced to a blog post anyway. There's a lot of crap in this article, it could use a good thorough decruftification. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid this as the source was legitimate and not a blog. DrSparticle (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy that presynaptic 5HT1a receptors function as autoreceptors inhibiting serotonin release, therefor it may infact be true that high levels of serotonin caused by reduced binding of the 1a receptors is responsible for this negative correlation. DrSparticle (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you see issues with the article, you should feel entirely free to fix them. If there is any way I can advise you on the editing process, please let me know. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know I can edit pages any time I like but I thought it a bit more reasonable to discuss the matter first. The source was NOT a blog and you should have given a better reason for removing the item. DrSparticle (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid the deletion because there was not a good enough reason. It was not deleted because another study had different results but because Looie496 seemed to be under the impression that the source was a blog(ie. not legitimate). The item did not concur with the source anyway and I was considering rewriting it and puting it in a different section. If someone had perhaps had the decency to mention the article doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126 that would have been nice. However I still do not see this as good enough reason to completely remove all mention of the original article relating to serotonin and religiosity. A response please. DrSparticle (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looie496 removed a note that "Low levels of serotonin may also be associated with intense spiritual experiences. Borg J, Andrée B, Soderstrom H, Farde L (2003). "The serotonin system and spiritual experiences". Am J Psychiatry 160 (11): 1965–9. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1965. PMID 14594742. Lay summary – BeliefNet. "

and I support this removal - the source is primary and is not even indexed in the Web of Science. Further, its results were countered in doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126, which is indexed by WoS. The discussed relation is a strong claim which can not rely on one primary source of questionable notability. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looie496 made no mention of doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126. What does it matter that it is not indexed in the Web of Science? That just means that the article in question was not cited by any other articles. DrSparticle (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(correction). The journal is indexed by WoS, but the year 2003 is not covered by WoS for this journal. Thus the major argument here is "strong claim based on single primary source", not WoS coverage. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Antidepressants"

Questions the efficacy of regulating Serotonin to treat depression and proposes an alternate theory to its behavior with no citations, and the last paragraph of the section reads like a series of non-sequiteurs. I don't know enough to correct it, but know sketchy writing when I see it. January 31, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.41.176 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. The entire paragraph has references, except the last sentence: "This provides evidence for the theory that serotonin is most likely used to regulate the extent or intensity of moods". --Mark PEA (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Functions section: are we talking about humans? or all animals? or what?

I see a problem with the way the "functions" section is written, and it seems to occur in many of the subsections. The "Effects of food content" section applies only to humans and states this explicitly, the "In the digestive tract" section implicitly applies only to humans, and then it's followed by the "Gauge of social situation" section which starts talking about lobster and crayfish, but then finishes up with a sentence about humans. Then "Effects on growth and reproduction" talks exclusively about roundworms and fruitflies.

I think that we need to think carefully about the degree to which we should integrate material on human and non-human animals, especially invertebrates. How similar are serotonin's functions in these animals? For the functions that are similar, I think we should state (with citing a reliable source) that the functions are similar, and give examples from different animals.

For functions that only apply in humans, or only in mammals, I think we should carefully separate this out. I think it might make sense to have a major section just for serotonin in humans, and then have separate sections to discuss other animals (and plants). The article as is is so muddled...it's talking about humans, often implicitly, in one sentence or section and then jumps to talking about invertebrates, then back to humans. Cazort (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas

Some things I think would be worth working on, especially with the bounty in mind ;) I'll try and make progress on these soon:

• History should be expanded. I'm sure there's more to it.
• End of the section on deficiency. How does "intense spiritual experiences" only get one sentence without any explanation? Why does it then jump to OCD in particular? This stuff should probably be rephrased.
• If there's deficiency, then there's excess; what happens with excessive serotonin? Should have a section for this as well.
• Maybe brief explanations about what each of the receptors do.
• Drugs section might do with a mention of St. John's Wort and people taking 5HTP supplements and such.
• I assume most people reading the article are interested in the effects on mood in humans, so to just toss the mention of Tianeptine lowering serotonin in without much discussion is a bad choice IMO.
• The article doesn't really discuss interplay with other neurotransmitters very well.
• I think that the article should devote considerably more space to mental effects in humans.

Persephone12 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts

I just reverted two edits by 88.97.36.161 (talk · contribs) that added statements about bone loss to the lead. I did so because no sources were added, and the sources that are given for those sentences don't say anything about this as far as I can tell. There does seem to be literature connecting serotonin to bone formation, including literature that is acceptable under WP:MEDRS, but it is very recent and would have to be cited specifically. So I am not necessarily objecting to the statements, just to the way that they were added without sources, giving an appearance that they were referenced to sources that don't actually have any relevance. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Effects of Food Content" doesn’t jibe.

According to calculations at Wolfram Alpha, bananas actually have a lower ratio of tryptophan to leucine and phenylalanine (7.7%) than the ratio in rye bread (9.8%). I confirmed these ratios using nutritional data at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The formula I used is tryptophan/(leucine + phenylalanine). I read the cited source, which defines bread as a “low-SPF” food -- under 10% -- but a banana (using usda nutrition data) would fall under that category as well, despite the source’s claim that it’s a “happy food” which improves serotonin production. I don’t know enough to edit the info correctly, but sufficed to say I’m more confused now since the claim made here at Wikipedia (rye bread vs. banana) appears to contradict its own math. Maybe a better example than a banana is in order? BTW, papaya does work out to 32%, so that one makes sense. But dates (5.4%) do not. Sadly, the citation imbues a credibility that the claim, as stated, doesn’t seem to deserve. Mentioning beneficial foods can be construed as nutritional advice, so I think this is relatively important to get correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkozo (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a hormone?

Serotonin does act as a hormone in the gut. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16378174 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20408856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.251.157 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Perference?

In the section: Behavior, Sexual Preference should be replaced with sexual orientation. If there is hormones in the mice, it's not his choice to be with male mice. In my opinion, it doesn't make scene. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Should we change it to sexual orientation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrokid77666 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Locations/Synthesis

The following is confused/confusing and needs elaboration: "Approximately 90% of the human body's total serotonin is located in the enterochromaffin cells in the gut, where it is used to regulate intestinal movements.[2][3] The remainder is synthesized ..."

The first is talking about storage (presumably - is it in fact synthesiszed there?) while the second is talking about synthesis. These two things are not comparable. This needs to be clarified - what are the sources - where is it created/stored/destroyed - how regulated, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.169 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)