|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Small molecule article.|
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|The content of Small molecule anti-genomic therapeutics was merged into Small molecule. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2014-07-24)|
"Small molecule" gets 8082 hits in pubmed, so I'm sure we can find a few... :)
To start, how about these:
- Koh JT, Zheng J (September 2007). "The new biomimetic chemistry: artificial transcription factors". ACS Chem. Biol. 2 (9): 599–601. doi:10.1021/cb700183s. PMID 17894442.
- Wu S, Guo W, Fang B (June 2006). "Development of small-molecule inhibitors of Raf". Recent Patents Anti-Infect Drug Disc 1 (2): 241–6. PMID 18221149.
- Cai SX (January 2007). "Small molecule vascular disrupting agents: potential new drugs for cancer treatment". Recent Patents Anticancer Drug Discov 2 (1): 79–101. PMID 18221055.
- Longo FM, Yang T, Knowles JK, Xie Y, Moore LA, Massa SM (December 2007). "Small molecule neurotrophin receptor ligands: novel strategies for targeting Alzheimer's disease mechanisms". Curr Alzheimer Res 4 (5): 503–6. PMID 18220511.
- I have the feeling I have asked a silly question: I was looking for a paper with a definition in it, which is a waste of time, in particular, I was looking for a nature reviews as they give a definition of some words on the side. but I suppose that if everyone concurs on the definition I can just cite one of these (I might actually read more than the abstract on the first one, it seems interesting (and short)). Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- As if to ask. I check Artificial transcription factor which refers to protein only. --Squidonius (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See also: too specific?
Does anyone else think that See Also section is getting populated with items that are overly specific. I might focus on adding broader terms, such as neurotransmitter, where appropriate. Since the article is rated top importance for the pharmacology project, I think that we should aim the material for as broad of an audience is possible. Shanata (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Molecular weight cutoff
is that really so that the upper limit for a small molecular weight molecule goes to 800 daltons. however as far as absorption is concerned, we generally draw the line at 300 daltons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- A reasonable MW cutoff is at least 500 (see Lipinski's Rule of Five) and there are orally active antibiotics whose MW is as high as 800. So I think 800 is a reasonable cutoff. Boghog (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- A small molecule is defined as one that can rapidly diffuse across cell membranes and hence have the possibility to be orally available. Of orally available drugs, the macrolide antibiotics are at the high end of the molecular range, 700–900 Daltons. Boghog (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Small molecules are often considered superior........
With all due respect to the parties involved, the material inserted with this edit seems to represent a severely limited understanding of pharmacology.
On top of just being plain wrong, there are a number of obvious WP policies which the statement seems to contravene, including WP:WEASEL and, given the fact this thing is cited to an unrecoverable 1991 Toronto star article, apparently WP:V.
- Actually rereading, I see the "considered superior" part was removed which mitigates the WP:WEASEL concerns; however, this statement is still just plain wrong on the basis that many many small molecule drugs can't be administered orally. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the above statement seems to represent a severely limited understanding of drug development. No biologic can be orally administered whereas most small molecules that have been approved as drugs (see table below) can. The key word is small molecule drug. Of course not all small molecules can be given orally. However the pharmaceutical industry works quite hard (as documented in , , and ) in making sure that the majority that are brought to market are orally active. Hence oral bioavailability is a key differentiator between small molecule drugs and biologics. Boghog (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that we need a working citation. Here is one that could be used to support the statement:
- Below is a table of the top 20 drugs by total prescriptions in 2011 ("Top products of 2011 by total prescriptions" (PDF). Pharmacy Times.) (note: duplicates are the same drug from different manufacturers). It is striking that every single one of these is a small molecule that is also orally bioavailable.
|Top 20 drugs by total prescriptions|
- The top 20 drugs by dollars ("Top products of 2011 by total dollars" (PDF). Pharmacy Times.) include the biologics Humira, Enbrel, Remicade, Neulasta, Rituxan, and Epogen, none of which are orally bioavailable. The remainder of this top 20 list are all orally bioavailable small molecules. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)