Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Arecoline.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Parasympathetic effects

I'm confused. A stimulant effect is usually a sympathetic effect, increasing heart rate, not a parasympathetic effect. Does anyone more familiar with Arecoline have anything to back up this statement?

According to the book: Medical Pharmacology at a Glance - Fifth Edition (M. J. Neal): Muscarinic effects are mainly parasympathomimetic (except sweating and vasodilation), and in general are the opposite of those caused by sympathetic stimulation. Muscarinic effects include: constriction of the pupil, accomodation for near vision, profuse watery salivation, bronchiolar constriction, bronchosecretion, hypotension, an increase in gastrointestinal motility and secrection contraction of the urinary bladder and sweating.

As I have used arecoline before, I can definitely confirm that it causes "constriction of the pupil", and I also noticed "profuse watery salivation", along with "bronchiolar constriction". The others i'm not sure about as I wasn't really analyzing.

My conclusion is that arecoline is a parasympathomimetic, rather than a sympathomimetic. Mark PEA 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Mark PEA[reply]

Herriot's books several times describe it heing used on horses with colic to make them defaecate and so expel what was causing the colic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenic?

Some web sites - such as https://blog.priceplow.com/betel-nut-arecoline and http://www.science20.com/news_articles/betel_nut_addiction_plagues_millions_worldwide_heres_why-158207 and the sites they reference - say this is a carcinogen, or likely carcinogen. Holland jon (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "probably" for arecoline and "yes" for areca nut overall. Current science is confident that areca nut chewing is carcinogenic. Current science thinks that that effect is probably at least partly because of arecoline itself, although it could also be from the other constituents of the nut as well, some of which are precursors to nitrosamines that form in the mouth during chewing. I will see about adding a sentence to this article about it. Section 5.5 Evaluation, on page 238 of IARC Monograph 85-6 states the following^[1]:

[...]

There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of betel quid without tobacco. Betel quid without tobacco causes oral cancer.

There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of betel quid without tobacco.

There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of betel quid with tobacco.

There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of areca nut.

There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of areca nut with tobacco.

There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecoline.

There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of arecaidine.

[...]

Quercus solaris (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Quercus solaris (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ International Agency for Research on Cancer (2005). Betel-quid and areca-nut chewing. IARC Monograph 85-6 (PDF). IARC. ISBN 978-92-832-1285-0.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arecoline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612061329/http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200409/V33N4p31S.pdf to http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200409/V33N4p31S.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[isbn_9789283212850-1] International Agency for Research on Cancer (2005). Betel-quid and areca-nut chewing. IARC Monograph 85-6 (PDF). IARC. ISBN 978-92-832-1285-0.

[1]