Talk:Piperidine

Heterocyclic

There is no mention that piperidine is a heterocyclic compound. I fix it.--84.163.86.13 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Piperidine compounds

No, piperidine is not the same as piperidine compounds. Some editors are obsessed with the following idea:

Piperidine is a structural component of fireant venom.

Piperidine is a structural component of neuroleptics.

ergo: Neuroleptics cause symptoms like fireant venom

etc. See also article on phenothiazine:

Phenothiazine is an insecticide

Phenothiazine compounds are neuroleptics

ergo: Neuroleptics are bugspray and cause anticholinesterase toxicity.

etc. etc.

I have added a few more examples of piperidine toxic compounds to add to this kind of logic. You can check it out.

And: Please don't revert edits without a comment. This is not a looney bin. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Piperidine alkaloid, which is an insecticide. So, for the records, piperidine compounds fight insects, everywhere. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the information you added to the piperdine article staying in. The article is quite small compared to many other articles on Wikipedia and i am in favor of the article being expanded to be exhaustive in all compounds containing piperidine. 65.28.227.116 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Disgressions

I have just reinstated my recent edits that had been reverted (diff. Here are my detailed reasons:

• Quinine is a bad example, it contains quinuclidine, not piperidine
• The whole section about ditran has nothing to do with this article
• The rest of that section was written in a very unencyclopedic tone and/or had not much to do with piperidine itself
• The neuroleptics are not synthesized from piperidine and were clearly in the wrong section
• The piperidine structure is so common that it does not make sense to randomly list compounds that have it in their structure

Cacycle (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The mentioned neuroleptics are not "synthesized from" piperidine, but are piperidine compounds. Checked. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't fall over the quinine (didn't add it either). Ditran etc are piperidine compounds, some neuroleptics too. They are not synthesized from piperidine. I agree that the piperidine structure is common. The bulbocapnine was indeed far fetched. So, *sigh*, I agree with your edit. The whole conspiracy theory now down the drain. *sigh*. Can't we at least mention, that anabasine is an insecticide? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* the whole educational effort now ruined *sigh*. Censored! *THEY* don't want us to know the *TRUTH*.

70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of the information you added to the piperdine article staying in. The article is quite small compared to many other articles on Wikipedia and i am in favor of the article being expanded to be exhaustive in all compounds containing piperidine. 65.28.227.116 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only compound which contains piperidine is 1 - piperidine. If you misspoke, and meant "compounds containing the piperidine substructure", a search of PubChem shows 1249853 hits. So, either way doesn't work. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That does'nt however mean that there is 1249853 piperidine compounds however. 65.28.227.116 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, what does this 1249853 number represent then, in your opinion? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on piperidine

If piperidine is used as a precursor to commerically significant compounds, then this application merits mention, IMHO. The mere presence of the piperidine-skeleton is more questionable. Otherwise the benzene article would or could indicate it is "in" thousands of compounds, which would be silly. It is very possible that piperidine is a common pharmacophore, a concept that could be explained. In WE-chem, we are constantly dealing with all sorts of editors, often from advocates for some political cause or conspiracy, who cannot suppress an urge to fill these pages with tangential information (e.g. that Socrates drank a tea containing a molecule related to piperidine!), the main virtue of such information being that it is merely true, vs pertinent and notable.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is always some room in the articles about functional groups, heterocycles, and common ring systems, to discuss the properties that are general to the compounds having a given substructure, as well as some specific examples. However, the discussion needs to be focused and avoid too many random-looking examples, or even worse, a selection of not-so-random examples that gives wrong ideas to the reader. One of the statements that was removed during the edit war was that "Many pharmaceutical drugs contain a piperidine ring because the group tends to impart favorable pharmacokinetic properties such as water solubility and bioavailability. Most piperidines induce the liver enzyme CYP2D6, resulting in faster metabolism, such as in many beta-blockers and antiarrhythmics". This kind of information, if true, seems highly relevant, but can we have a reference, please? I did a quick search to see if I could find an article about piperidine as a building block in drug molecules, but I couldn't find it. --Itub (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That cited part on pharmacokinetics is utter nonsense. That might actually be true for that unnamed class of compounds, but it is clearly not a general feature of the piperidine moiety. You could equally well attribute this to methylene groups. Cacycle (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The article simply states that piperdine is a structrual component of these drugs which is true: risperidone, raloxifene, minoxidil, thioridazine, haloperidol, droperidol, and mesoridazine. Nowhere is it stateed that the drugs are synthesised from piperidine. Dr CareBear (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence, as it is there now, suggests that the compound 'contains' piperidine ("Piperidine is found in the following drugs"), which is untrue (and that was true quite a couple of times in the edits). It would be better to say that it is a structural component of the drug. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect.--Stone (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really: see Beetstra's and Cacycle's comments. Piperidine is NOT found in ANY drug. The presence of the piperidine skeleton is of no specific pharmacological significance: six membered hydrocarbons are routine as are amines, so inevitably the piperidine skeleton is pervasive.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, kinnings, I am running out of patience. Here my take: The inclusion of natural "piperidine alkaloids", like solenopsin, anabasin, coniine, conhydrine is fully justified, as in the usual alkaloid classification in literature historically such distinction is being made, and such classification is being used. The addition of "unencyclopedic tangential" information, like that Socrates was executed by coniine, or anabasine is a nicotine like alkaloid, used as an insecticide, doesn't harm and adds a little to historical and everyday life context for the lay reader. We really don't need to encrypt this article to be readable or at least partially understandable only for chemists. I will be glad to point to scientific teaching materials (The chemistry of the plant alkaloids), which gladly include such slightly tangential information, historical information and case reports. We don't need to be more catholic than the pope here. Regarding examples of the occurence of the piperidine structural motif in pharmaceuticals: Yes, give a few examples. Why not also include the JB-329 piperidilbenzilates, even if somebody, somewhere may wonder how everything is apparently connected to everything in the universe. No need to censor that. Of course these really include the "structural motif", not piperidine. And the structural motif is present in 1 Mio (!) other chemicals, so we have to focus on a few more commonly used pharmaceuticals there. My focus on toxic examples was "all true". but biased by selection, in an attempt of a "reductio ad absurdum".

Now kinnings: A serious word to Dr Carebear and another anon editor:

Chemistry doesn't work like cooking chicken soup. In chicken soup you cook a soup on chicken, then it is a chicken soup and tastes like chicken. If you add salt it becomes more salty, if you add pepper it becomes more peppery. It is a mixture of the components. (Chicken, salt, pepper)

In chemistry this is not true for chemical compounds and chemical components. Ordinary salt is Sodium chloride, a compound of the flammable metal Sodium and the toxic Chlorine gas. But it retains none of these properties.

Anon: you said "containing piperidine" and "including the piperidine structure" would be the same, and I am mincing words. No I am not mincing words, but you need a chemistry class, as seen by the example of ordinary salt, which is not chlorine poison gas any more. I told you to discuss, others have told you the same. You are a candidate for blocking for vandalism, see your talk page.

Carebear: I have explained (for Phenothiazine) that in friendly words on your talk page, and you are still reversing edits without comment and discussion. This is mental. Stop it. Your neuroleptic bugspray theory is crap, for the same reason, why table salt is not poison gas, in the same logic. Discuss further edits. This has been explained to you since a year, by reasonable people, on your talk page. If you don't listen then it is either vandalism, or lack of intellectual capacity, or hooliganism. I would propose you abstain from editing chemical articles. 70.137.164.136 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Piperidine, natural occurence

Piperidine (itself, not piperine) has been obtained from pepper (Spaeth and Englaender, Ber.1935,68, 2218; cf. Pictet and Pictet, Helv. Chim. Acta, 1927, 10, 593),from Psilocaulon absimile N.E.Br (Aizoaceae) in which it occurs to the extent of 4.5% (Rimington, S. Afr. J. Sci, 1934, 31, 184), and in Petrosimonia monandra (Juraschewski and Stepanov, J. Gen. Chem., U.R.S.S., 1939, 9, 1687) (from ref below)

Piperidine alkaloids

The Lobeline group belongs also to the Piperidine alkaloids. (ref Book: The Plant Alkaloids, Thomas Anderson Henry (Formerly Director Wellcome Chemical Research Laboratories and Superintendent of Laboratories, the Imperial Institute London), 4th ed. 1949, The Blakiston Company)

This book is also a rich source of "unencyclopedic information" about the effects on frogs, extraction, plant synthesis pathways, commercial and historical importance. And it is written in "unencyclopedic tone". It is instead cacyclopedic.

Download from this site (very interesting website for WP freaks)

http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/index.html

70.137.164.136 (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 70.137.164.136 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And cacycle may please explain, what he means by "unencyclopedic tone". More catholic than the pope? I still believe that many things in scientific articles can be explained in plain english, for plain people. I know that we have to deprogram fresh academics from their academic babble until they finally notice that they are not writing on their damn thesis any more. Keep it educational for plain people too. e.g. "Scientific American" is also readable for normal educated people, WP should learn from that. (or if that is too prole for you, think you write for your CEO) 70.137.164.136 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)