'Bold textBold text'Template:Wikiproject MCB

Merge?

Should this page be merged with poison? If not, I feel the distinction between a toxin and poison should be made clearer. -- FirstPrinciples 13:57, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Most of that information should be moved elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, a toxin is a compound produced by an organism which causes harm or injury. (some dictionaries list it as a specific product of metabolism and capable of inducing antibodies -- anyone know more about this?) There is no need for it kill quickly, efficiently or at all to qualify. Botulism is fatal in 15% of the cases and many people survive bee stings. The part about water/dietary minerals being toxic isn't relevant here. Not everything that's toxic is a toxin. I don't see toxin being more than a stub unless information from (biological) poisons is merged, along with venum, endotoxin, enterotoxin and exotoxin. --jag123 16:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed: I've edited it accordingly to focus on "toxin" alone. raygirvan Apr 18 2005

Bacterial toxins

Is anyone familiar with bacterial toxins? Are they actually produced with the purpose of self-defense as opposed to just being present in the structural components or a by-product of its metabolism?

It can be both. Especially fungi makes lot of toxin for bacterial defence, and some bacteria also do it against 'each other'. But as you yourself point out, they can be byproducts of their own metabolismen, which is excreted. I study biology at the University of Copenhagen. ----

What do bacterial toxins consist of? Are they neurotoxic? Hematotoxic? Irritants?-Rolypolyman 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article about bacterial toxins. NighthawkJ 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Alt Med Rudeness

Headline text

= The *ahem* venom in the sentence on complementary medicine was way out of line with NPOV. People doing complementary medicine use a different definition of the word. Fine. You should be able to read this article without thinking that it's a scathing, non-specific attack on complementary medicine. DanKeshet 06:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so don't delete it - rephrase it in a way that you see as NPOV, but without blunting the specific detail that it's not merely a different usage, but one that mainstream science considers utter BS. The different usage is a matter of observation, and it's also a matter of observation that scientists have criticised it, both on grounds of it being a misnomer and the nature of such toxins being generally unproven. RayGirvan 10:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current version is much better than the old version I edited from. But when it says "mainstream scientists argue that the nature of such substances is usually unproven", that's pretty much useless. If someone wants to call mercury a "toxin", no mainstream scientist is going to argue it isn't deleterious to health, they might just say you have your terminology wrong. The current statement is just so broad it could apply to anything. DanKeshet 17:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the proper semantics may be, the use of toxin as a biological substance for attack/defense does seem inconsistant with the common use in alt medicine. Especially with the many questionable methods of 'detox' (what are they removing exactly, how much is there, would the body do it on its own anyway, and is it even dangerous?) what is really being dealt with needs identifying. Perhaps we should communicate this, I know it's common jargon since 'toxin' is shorter than 'toxic substances'. Perhaps this is evidence of the word definition altering in culture, and we should specify toxin to be more of a broad thing? Venom does seem more accurate in classing biological defense mechanisms. Tyciol 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toxin, Poison, Toxic

It would seem that "toxin" is being confused with "poison" and with "toxic". Several comments are actually about toxic substances, e.g., "mercury" is a toxic substance. However, toxins are normally poisons that are produced by bioligical means. Snake venom, botulinin toxin (common food poisoning), etc. I will try to clarify some of the paragraphs as time allows. This is only a subtle difference, but when researching one will quickly find the terms used in a clear range in significant articles. El guero "Wayne"

You're absolutely right. I corrected the article by merging with biotoxin (redundant) and copyediting appropriately. – Clockwork Soul 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phycotoxin inclusion

I wonder if the word 'phycotoxin' should appear in this definition. there is no separate entry for this word, yet I came across this word in a book proposal today. it is basically a synonym for 'seafood toxin' zuzubel 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toxoids

Not accurate to say that "When toxins are generated by bacteria, they are called toxoids." Toxoids are toxins that have been modified to make them non-harmful without removing their ability to induce an immune response (as, in fact, described on the Wikipedia page for toxoids). Sophisticated penguin 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I took the toxoid information out and added "Toxoid" to the "Also See" section. The first part of what I removed was clearly in conflict with the "Toxoid" article, and the part pointing the error out says that the line above is "plain wrong" and so, is out of place. Besides, if toxoids are not toxins then there is little reason to include it, right?

Here it is: The phrase "When toxins are generated by bacteria, they are called toxoids" is plain wrong, although toxoids are indeed of bacterial origin (eg from C. diphtheriae or C. tetani), the term toxoid stems from tox-oid (toxin-like). Toxoids are defined correctly as modified toxins that have lost their specific activity but still can be used to induce antibodies recognizing and neutralizing the authentic toxins. This restricts the use of "toxoid" to Diphtheria and Tetanus and the respective vaccines.

--Globalist1789 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vira = Toxins?

As the text points out, toxins are biological substances made by cells. But does this mean that virus' are also toxins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.165.143.108 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, because the production of viral particles by an infected cell is a result of a specific pathological process, a viral infection. The definition of viruses as living organisms is problematic, as because they have no own metabolism, can't multiply without host cell and are not cells at all. Yet, viruses are clearly considered by most (in fact all known to my) biologist to be one of the lowest forms of life (along with prions), therefore, a virus is considered to be an organism.

Toxin is also considered a defined molecule; viruses are not defined molecules, they are composed of more, if not many, molecules.--84.163.109.68 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]