Talk:Botulinum toxin

Poison or medication?

This article treats the botulinum toxin more as the medication Botox(tm) than possibly the most lethal poison on earth. I suggest replacing/extending the info box with toxicity information and classification from the toxic point of view. I would also restructure the article, moving the chapters regarding toxicity and working mechanism more to the top. Chapters 'therapeutic research' and 'manufacturers' should be moved into 'medical uses' and below 'Biochemical mechanism of toxicity'. Misiu mp (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Permanent paralysis?

The article does not state whether the paralysis is temporary or permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.229 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Of what I understand the damage to synapses is permanent. Recovery is made through creation of new neural connections, which is a rather long process. Misiu mp (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cooking?

According to the article,

The toxin itself is rapidly destroyed by heat, such as in thorough cooking.[14] However, the spores which produce the toxin are heat-tolerant and will survive boiling at 100 degrees Celsius for an extended period of time.

So, that begs the question: how does one canning food, etc., be assured that it is safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.178.131 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The C. botulinum spores are killed in the canning process because increased pressure is applied, allowing boiling to occur at a higher temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only the last big epidemy in Sweden was caused by canned ham which was not prepared with a small dose of nitrite (very small) and C. botulinum had survived canning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.237.2 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the spores which produce the toxin.... Spores do not produce toxins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.100.145 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting the spores will not 'hatch' in an oxygen environment. So boiling will destroy the toxin, and the spores remaining are harmless unless allowed to 'hatch'. Jokem (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I just addressed this in the article. --Saaga (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to sausage comment

Hi. I would suggest you look into the history of this naming convention. It has nothing to do with the shape but rather to do with the fact that the initial outbreaks which were in the region of Germany, not Belgium were linked to the blood sausages which were quite popular at the time. The clinical description of the disease was first done by Justinus Kerner. I recommend reading "Historical notes on botulism, Clostridium botulinum, botulinum toxin, and the idea of the therapeutic use of the toxin" by Frank J. Erbguth, Movement Disorders vol 19 issue S8.

Growing in sausages/meat vs. sausage-shaped

There is a dispute about why this bacterium is called botulinum. I have moved the part of article recently added by User: 86.150.47.14 to here.

"The author of this page continually revises any alterations that I make. This is his/her right to do so, of course, but I am disappointed by his/her dogmatism. Much of the above paragraph is nothing more than opinion, and is not referenced anywhere. Perhaps, with this introduction, s/he will permit my alternative to stand? The name of the bacterium is Clostridium botulinum. Literally: the sausage clostridium. While it is true that the bacterium has been isolated from poorly preserved meat products, the first recorded example of this was in the late 19th century from ham served at a street party in Belgium; not Canadian ham; not sausages. Also, in recent years, cases have been reported in the medical press of clinical botulism caused by imperfectly preserved yoghourt, green beans, mushrooms, and even from native honey. The point is, the bacterium needs a suitable source of food, and an anaerobic atmosphere in which to grow: it does not exclusively require 'meaty' media. In the early days of bacteriology, naming bacterial species was tricky. They had no chemical techniques for serotyping, so bacteria were often described by visible physical characteristics. An example would be Staphylococcus aureus (lit: golden bunch of grapes) or Staph. albus (white bunch of grapes). The 'bunch of grapes' bit refers to the fact that these cocci clump together, and when viewed under the microscope, vaguely resemble that fruit. Ultimately, these two species were distinguished by the different colours of the colonies of billions of bacteria when grown in culture. Aureus = bright yellow; albus = white. I suggest (for about the tenth time) that the name for C. botulinum actually derives from the rod-shape of the Clostridium bacterium. Viewed under the microscope these bacteria appear like tiny, curved rods - not unlike little sausages - hence Clostridium botulinum: the Clostridium that looks like a sausage."

Would somebody who knows more about this than me (nothing) please help clear this up. Thanks.Mmoneypenny 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E.Van Ermengem discovered the organism Cl. botulinum in 1895 after 34 Belgian citizens had become ill following the ingestion of salted ham, true, (Atlas of Cosmetic Surgery, p291, published by Saunders 2002) but the disease had been recognised well prior to this. An outbreak in 1793 in Wildebad, Germany was associated with the eating of contaminated sausages and it was at this time the clinical disease was called botulism, although it was also called Kerner's disease for a time after the health official who compiled the reports of this particular outbreak.

Basic undergraduate microbiology teaches the classification of bacteria into four categories according to staining characteristics (Gram positive or Gram negative) and organism shape (coccus, or round-shaped, and bacillus, or rod-shaped). Hence, lots of different bacteria are rod-shaped and thus plausibly sausage-shaped: e.g. corynebacteria (diphtheria), actinomyces, bacillus anthracis (anthrax), listeria, and of course the clostridia, all rod-shaped, of which there are over 60 species including Cl. botulinum.

So, aside from the historic reality that this disease botulism was named well before the organism was identified, it would in any case not have made sense to identify a species of clostridium using a morphological descriptor that is in fact more generic than the genus, since all clostridia and a great number of other bacteria are, if you like, sausage-shaped. Of course, if the gratuitous observation can be forgiven, those of a Freudian bent might think of another way to allude to a rod-shaped structure. So, Mmoneypenny, congratulations on your lateral thinking, but in this case: "no cigar".Drpeachy (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oral poisoning and digestion

What is the oral LD₅₀? I would think that most of the toxin would be destroyed by proteinases in the stomach if swallowed. Icek 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins. Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract. I'm going to edit this article with footnotes when I get some time. God forbid that an incident occur and the news media use this page the way it is.Jdnicholson 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)jdnicholson

Thanks for the answer. I just discovered that the German article also says that there are protective proteins which prevent digestion in the stomach and further states that the complex of the toxin proper and the protective proteins dissociates at neutral pH. Icek 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why grouped under Chemical Warfare?

What's the point in putting that huge "Chemical Warfare" banner at the top of the page? Based on the contents of the article, it seems like it's never actually been developed into a mass-destruction weapon. Chlorine, for example, has no such banner, even though it has been and is much more likely to be used as such. Potential use as a weapon seems to me to be of little importance relative to the other aspects of the toxin presented in the article. Anon, Fri Jun 8 14:25:15 EDT 2007

I would have to agree with that - there is no use at all for the botulinum toxin as a part of WMD. If you let the solvent go into the bottle too quickly, it denatures the botulinum protein - it is very delicate. The clostridium bacterium, on the other hand, would and does kill people, but only as the result of contamination of food, and it is entirely unsuitable for warfare. The "tests" in Manchuria were using the bacterium, not the purified extract of toxin. docboat 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. It might belong in the category, but it certainly doesn't need the chemical warfare template. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The US and UK experimented with botulinus toxin, with the biological (not chemical) agent designation X, but found it not generally viable as a weapon. There were tests at Horn Island in the Gulf of Mexico. It remained of interest for clandestine use; IIRC, it was considered for assassinating Castro by the CIA. Hcberkowitz 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was -- see Botulinum_toxin#Chemical_warfare and also The_Cuban_Project#Planning. As for the article itself -- any objections at all to me pulling the chemical warfare vert infobox? --Iknowyourider (t c) 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is true, but I was told that this is the stuff Saddam used on the Kurdish people before the first Gulf war.

Apparently botulinum toxin was produced at fort detrick during the second world war after a request by the british. ... come to think of it I should check to see if that's in the article. cyclosarin 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think China tried to develop aerosolized botulinum weapons, hence the US Army's development of the antitoxin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Botulinum has a rich military history. The United States tried for nearly 30 years to weaponize it. If it were not for Ed Shantz and others at then Camp Detrick, we would not know very much about this toxin. The first medical use of BoTox was credited to research efforts by the US Army and Dr. Shantz's willingness to share samples of the toxin with nonmilitary researchers. Nonetheless, I agree that today it is far more of a medical topic than a biological (or chemical) warfare topic. —Reid Kirby 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to archive some of these entries

This talk page is rather long. I think some of the discussions need to be archived. I read through WP:ARCHIVE; however, I didn't see any standard criteria for determining what to archive. Discussions that haven't been active for a year or more, maybe? Please give thoughts. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to take care of this myself. Right now.--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done!--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Different Types of Botox

I think that this article may benefit from a section discussing the different types of Botox (A vs B) and the efficacy of each. Wiki emma johnson (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancies/errors in article

The second sentence in the article states:

"It is the most toxic protein known[1][2] with an LD50 of roughly 0.005-0.05 µg/kg."

The second paragraph under "Chemical overview and lethality" states:

"It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg (intravenously)[9] meaning one teaspoon can kill 1.2 billion people."

My first point: LD50 means median lethal dose. So, which is correct: 1ng/kg or 5-50 ng/kg? Is the first reference to oral dose?

My second point: (If my calculations are correct) One teaspoon of toxin is about 5cc, which is somewhere near 5g. Divide that by 1.2 billion people and you get about 4 ng per person. Which would achieve the ld50 of a 4 kg newborn. So, it seems that means that if 1.2 billion 4 kg infants were injected with equal shares of a teaspoon of toxin, half of them would die, assuming ld50 of 1 ng/kg. I would think that the average adult would be 70-80 kg.

Timalleman (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Molecular Complexity

I don't know where else to ask this, so this seemed best suited. Discounting chained alloys and related molecules for example; is Botulinum Toxin among the most complex indivisible molecules? That is, a molecule that, if it were to be spliced in any manner, would no longer contain the properties of the molecule as a whole. DNA would obviously not count in this manner, as resequencing would merit an acceptable chromosome configuration, albeit applicable to a different "organism" blueprint.

What are some of the most complex indivisible organic molecules?-TAz69x (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantage for the bacterium?

Jdnicholson wrote, s.v. "Oral poisoning and digestion,"

BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins. Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract.

These references to apparent engineering and design raise the question of what benefit the toxin actually provides to the bacterium itself. Is it this bug's ordinary life cycle to kill its hosts with the toxin, grow by feeding on the cadaver, sporulate when the acidity gets too high or the body disintegrates enough to admit oxygen, and remain as spores until ingested again? If so, this bacterium is an outright predator. What is its ordinary prey? Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This page looks horrible right now, with ref tags and vandalism in some places. Please clean it up--68.193.135.139 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement in intro

OK, I (neurologist) thought I'd start to deal with this. First para: "Despite the toxicity of some of the strains, humans are immune to others, and hence these can be used in small doses to treat muscle spasms" This statement makes no sense: If humans were immune to "some strains", the treatment with these wouldn't work. Humans are *not* immune to "some strains" of botulinum toxin and the citation (link to a commercial website) does not relate to this claim at all. It seems someone else will have to take over cleaning this mess up (the section on medical applications in particular is bad), since it's no use trying to improve an article only to see the edits taken off again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.161.90 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I, too, was confused this statement when I first read this article, however I am not an expert on the subject. Please do not be discouraged by the reversion of your edits, sometimes some editors get overly zealous. I can only speak for myself, but I think Wikipedia can only profit from editors who are experts or professionals in some field. However, edits from users without an account are often treated with some scepticism because I can tell you from experience that about 80% of those are vandalism, and most of the remaining 20% are not very qualified. In your case, neither was the case, so I would appreciate it very much if you did not leave the project but create an account and continue to help improve the project and especially this article.

The sentence you criticised does in fact cite a commercial website which does not even back the statement, so I removed it and added . Maybe that is a good starting point for fixing the statement. Sometimes Wikipedia can be quite bureaucratic ;-)

— Shinryuu (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this: at current, the section on Muscle Spasms is terrifically under-developed, awkward, etc. "The acceptance of BTX-A use for the treatment of muscle pain disorders is growing, with approvals pending in many European countries and studies on headaches (including migraine), pro static symptoms, asthma, obesity and many other possible indications are ongoing. Problem in writing etc." I'm going to go ahead and clean it up, a bit, but it's basically a stub, right now. It should be expanded or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.167.41 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian? Really?

Why is Kim Kardashian--a no-talent, reality show nobody, the worst type of modern-day "celebrity"--mentioned in a scientific article like this one? Lots of celebrities could be named, but there is no need to name any of them, LEAST of all a reality "star." Her name should be removed. Reality "stars" are jokes. It degrades the dignity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.227.63 (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference

This reference is not openly verifiable because it requires a membership/log in [1]

Naumann M, So Y, Argoff CE, et al. (May 2008). "Assessment: Botulinum neurotoxin in the treatment of autonomic disorders and pain (an evidence-based
review): report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology". Neurology 70 (19): 1707–14.
doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000311390.87642.d8. PMID 18458231. http://www.neurology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18458231.

Attys (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)