Talk:Serotonin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archives

"Effects of serotonin deficiency"[edit]

I attempted to edit out the typos and grammatical problems with this section, but it is still weak. The lengthy discussion of the effects on newborn and maturing mice seems to go nowhere, and the last paragraph is really more of a list than a paragraph. I don't know about others, but I was fooled into thinking the subject of the paragraph was going to be the relation between serotonin and spiritual experience, but then it just sort of abruptly drops that line of thinking and goes on to depression, and then OCD. I didn't want to do a logic edit, because I haven't seen the sources, and it seems like more material is needed, or maybe a complete change of format. Anyway, I hope someone will take a stab at it. Leha Carpenter (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that low levels of serotonin may be associated with intense spiritual experiences is inconsistent with the article cited. The article in question discusses the relationship between binding potential of the 5HT1a receptor and individuals self reported level of religiosity. DrSparticle (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that line, which was sourced to a blog post anyway. There's a lot of crap in this article, it could use a good thorough decruftification. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I undid this as the source was legitimate and not a blog. DrSparticle (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy that presynaptic 5HT1a receptors function as autoreceptors inhibiting serotonin release, therefor it may infact be true that high levels of serotonin caused by reduced binding of the 1a receptors is responsible for this negative correlation. DrSparticle (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you see issues with the article, you should feel entirely free to fix them. If there is any way I can advise you on the editing process, please let me know. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I know I can edit pages any time I like but I thought it a bit more reasonable to discuss the matter first. The source was NOT a blog and you should have given a better reason for removing the item. DrSparticle (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid the deletion because there was not a good enough reason. It was not deleted because another study had different results but because Looie496 seemed to be under the impression that the source was a blog(ie. not legitimate). The item did not concur with the source anyway and I was considering rewriting it and puting it in a different section. If someone had perhaps had the decency to mention the article doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126 that would have been nice. However I still do not see this as good enough reason to completely remove all mention of the original article relating to serotonin and religiosity. A response please. DrSparticle (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looie496 removed a note that "Low levels of serotonin may also be associated with intense spiritual experiences. Borg J, Andrée B, Soderstrom H, Farde L (2003). "The serotonin system and spiritual experiences". Am J Psychiatry. 160 (11): 1965–9. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1965. PMID 14594742. Lay summaryBeliefNet. |access-date= requires |url= (help)"
and I support this removal - the source is primary and is not even indexed in the Web of Science. Further, its results were countered in doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126, which is indexed by WoS. The discussed relation is a strong claim which can not rely on one primary source of questionable notability. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Looie496 made no mention of doi:10.1038/mp.2009.126. What does it matter that it is not indexed in the Web of Science? That just means that the article in question was not cited by any other articles. DrSparticle (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(correction). The journal is indexed by WoS, but the year 2003 is not covered by WoS for this journal. Thus the major argument here is "strong claim based on single primary source", not WoS coverage. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Antidepressants"[edit]

Questions the efficacy of regulating Serotonin to treat depression and proposes an alternate theory to its behavior with no citations, and the last paragraph of the section reads like a series of non-sequiteurs. I don't know enough to correct it, but know sketchy writing when I see it. January 31, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.41.176 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. The entire paragraph has references, except the last sentence: "This provides evidence for the theory that serotonin is most likely used to regulate the extent or intensity of moods". --Mark PEA (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Functions section: are we talking about humans? or all animals? or what?[edit]

I see a problem with the way the "functions" section is written, and it seems to occur in many of the subsections. The "Effects of food content" section applies only to humans and states this explicitly, the "In the digestive tract" section implicitly applies only to humans, and then it's followed by the "Gauge of social situation" section which starts talking about lobster and crayfish, but then finishes up with a sentence about humans. Then "Effects on growth and reproduction" talks exclusively about roundworms and fruitflies.

I think that we need to think carefully about the degree to which we should integrate material on human and non-human animals, especially invertebrates. How similar are serotonin's functions in these animals? For the functions that are similar, I think we should state (with citing a reliable source) that the functions are similar, and give examples from different animals.

For functions that only apply in humans, or only in mammals, I think we should carefully separate this out. I think it might make sense to have a major section just for serotonin in humans, and then have separate sections to discuss other animals (and plants). The article as is is so muddled...it's talking about humans, often implicitly, in one sentence or section and then jumps to talking about invertebrates, then back to humans. Cazort (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

Some things I think would be worth working on, especially with the bounty in mind ;) I'll try and make progress on these soon:

  • History should be expanded. I'm sure there's more to it.
  • End of the section on deficiency. How does "intense spiritual experiences" only get one sentence without any explanation? Why does it then jump to OCD in particular? This stuff should probably be rephrased.
  • If there's deficiency, then there's excess; what happens with excessive serotonin? Should have a section for this as well.
  • Maybe brief explanations about what each of the receptors do.
  • Drugs section might do with a mention of St. John's Wort and people taking 5HTP supplements and such.
  • I assume most people reading the article are interested in the effects on mood in humans, so to just toss the mention of Tianeptine lowering serotonin in without much discussion is a bad choice IMO.
  • The article doesn't really discuss interplay with other neurotransmitters very well.
  • I think that the article should devote considerably more space to mental effects in humans.

Persephone12 (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts[edit]

I just reverted two edits by 88.97.36.161 (talk · contribs) that added statements about bone loss to the lead. I did so because no sources were added, and the sources that are given for those sentences don't say anything about this as far as I can tell. There does seem to be literature connecting serotonin to bone formation, including literature that is acceptable under WP:MEDRS, but it is very recent and would have to be cited specifically. So I am not necessarily objecting to the statements, just to the way that they were added without sources, giving an appearance that they were referenced to sources that don't actually have any relevance. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Effects of Food Content" doesn’t jibe.[edit]

According to calculations at Wolfram Alpha, bananas actually have a lower ratio of tryptophan to leucine and phenylalanine (7.7%) than the ratio in rye bread (9.8%). I confirmed these ratios using nutritional data at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/. The formula I used is tryptophan/(leucine + phenylalanine). I read the cited source, which defines bread as a “low-SPF” food -- under 10% -- but a banana (using usda nutrition data) would fall under that category as well, despite the source’s claim that it’s a “happy food” which improves serotonin production. I don’t know enough to edit the info correctly, but sufficed to say I’m more confused now since the claim made here at Wikipedia (rye bread vs. banana) appears to contradict its own math. Maybe a better example than a banana is in order? BTW, papaya does work out to 32%, so that one makes sense. But dates (5.4%) do not. Sadly, the citation imbues a credibility that the claim, as stated, doesn’t seem to deserve. Mentioning beneficial foods can be construed as nutritional advice, so I think this is relatively important to get correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkozo (talkcontribs) 07:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a hormone?[edit]

Serotonin does act as a hormone in the gut. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16378174 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20408856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.251.157 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Perference?[edit]

In the section: Behavior, Sexual Preference should be replaced with sexual orientation. If there is hormones in the mice, it's not his choice to be with male mice. In my opinion, it doesn't make scene. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Should we change it to sexual orientation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrokid77666 (talkcontribs) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Locations/Synthesis[edit]

The following is confused/confusing and needs elaboration: "Approximately 90% of the human body's total serotonin is located in the enterochromaffin cells in the gut, where it is used to regulate intestinal movements.[2][3] The remainder is synthesized ..."

The first is talking about storage (presumably - is it in fact synthesiszed there?) while the second is talking about synthesis. These two things are not comparable. This needs to be clarified - what are the sources - where is it created/stored/destroyed - how regulated, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.169 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Modulating what?[edit]

The link No Fair! My Serotonin Level Is Low says that "Serotonin is a chemical messenger thought to modulate depression, anger, sleep, sexuality...even vomiting." which is missing from the article as far as I can see. I think it is important to write functional sentences to constitute the "comprehension infrastructure", and that "X is an Y doing Z and T" is a good pattern for describing what a thing is and does. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rotating Molecular Depiction[edit]

The molecule rotating is not quite the same molecule as in the systematic and ball and stick models, because in the rotating molecule one of the nitrogens is not in the aromatic ring, as it should be. Captain Gamma (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not enough sources[edit]

"Effects of food content

In humans, serotonin levels are affected by diet. An increase in the ratio of tryptophan to phenylalanine and leucine will increase serotonin levels. Fruits with a good ratio include dates, papayas and bananas. Research also suggests eating a diet rich in carbohydrates and low in protein will increase serotonin by secreting insulin, which helps in amino acid competition.[18]"

Reference 18 only applies to the last sentence. The three previous sentences do not have any citation. 92.23.38.77 (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Blood-brain barrier[edit]

Unlike its precursors, 5-HTP and tryptophan, serotonin does not cross the blood–brain barrier, which means ingesting serotonin in the diet has no effect on brain serotonin levels.

First, this assertion needs at least one citation to support it. Second, although it may well constitute currently received pharmacological wisdom that serotonin cannot usually cross the normal, healthy, human blood-brain barrier, it's less clear that that is the case for other animals. See for example Nakatani, Yasushi, et al. "Augmented brain 5‐HT crosses the blood–brain barrier through the 5‐HT transporter in rat." European Journal of Neuroscience 27.9 (2008): 2466-2472. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445233 [full text at http://www.serotonin-dojo.jp/pdf/articles_004.pdf]) 124.186.104.184 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Clots et al.[edit]

"When the platelets bind to a clot, they release serotonin, where it serves as a vasoconstrictor and helps to regulate hemostasis and blood clotting. Serotonin also is a growth factor for some types of cells, which may give it a role in wound healing."

Presumably the higher or lower than normal volume of platelets would affect the greater or lesser ability to clot, to heal, perchance to digest, or to affect one's mood - does anyone have any thoughts or links.184.147.109.37 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed mood diagram: uncited, no caption.[edit]

I removed this diagram: its claims are uncited, and there is no caption to explain what the relevance is. If anyone here feels that it is useful, please re-add it, but I would suggest adding a caption explaining the relevance, with references to support the content. --Slashme (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Innate immunity[edit]

Serotonin plays a significant role in innate immunity. The research paper "Indigenous Bacteria from the Gut Microbiota Regulate Host Serotonin Biosynthesis" points out that the mechanisms of gut derived 5-HT are not clear. The most interesting finding of that paper is the one that has had my edit reversed out. The types of cells that you get the most serotonin production from are nasty and create very nasty biotoxins. The serotonin causes mobility and so your body rids them as fast as possible. This make enormous sense for innate immunity.

There are serious implication to absorbing the biotoxins instead of eliminating them, as when one has low serotonin production and has constipation issues instead of getting diarrhea. The study found that it is the microbial metabolites that are signaling the EC cells to produce the serotonin.

I started researching serotonin because of an article, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013346, Platelet Serotonin Level Predicts Survival in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

I was trying to figure out the best microbials for probiotics to increase serotonin production and when I found the microbes that produced the most serotonin are responsible for making biotoxins like botulism, and other very nasty poisons.

The species that resulted in the most serotonin were the clostridal species, which produce colostridial toxins, and they produce things like gangrenes. They are very nasty.

So, low serotonin suggests lower mobility and which leads to greater absorption of biotoxins due to lower mobility.

Innate immunity is very important, and poorly understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talkcontribs) 04:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

awesome, you found the Talk page! congrats. OK, so you want to add content to Wikipedia about health. The guideline for sources for content about health is here: WP:MEDRS. The sources you are bringing, are not what MEDRS calls for. Please read MEDRS and let me know if you have questions. (please take it slow, there is a lot to learn). Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Mainly what Jytdog is saying is that the sources we look for are review papers in high-quality journals, not primary research studies. Review papers tend to be more reliable in terms of documenting the importance of findings. Looie496 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694720/ says "The most consistent findings are the increase in plasma 5-HT in diarrheal diseases and reduction in constipation." The cell study provides information about the colonic EC cells producing the most serotonin in response to colostridial species and they also provide evidence that the "effects of Sp on gut 5-HT are not dependent on Sp-mediated regulatory T cell induction.

This is extremely important to health. When was the last time a doctor considered that diarrhea could be helping your body get rid of harmful microbia, or that constipation could be resulting in increased absorption of biotoxins because the body isn't eliminating properly.

This one is looking at constipation in neurological disease, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1738209/pdf/v074p00013.pdf. So, there is more constipation with neurological diseases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talkcontribs) 16:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dwot. Thanks for writing here. OK...what Wikipedia is all about, is communicating accepted knowledge. That is described in the policy, WP:NOT. For health content, we find accepted knowledge expressed in two places - recent review articles, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies (that is what WP:MEDRS says). To generate content, we read those sources (recent reviews and statements), and summarize what they say here. giving weight (in other words, space and authority) to various ideas, as they are found in those sources (that is described in the policy, WP:NPOV), and we cite the source so others can make sure that the content is accurate, per WP:VERIFY. What we do not allow here, is what we call "original research", which is described in the policy, WP:OR. (That makes sense, right? If what we are expressing is "accepted knowledge" then of course we wouldn't allow anybody's original research into Wikipedia). Finally, Wikipedia is not a platform for "getting the word out" - this is also described in WP:NOT, in the section called WP:NOTADVOCACY. These policies I have cited, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and WP:NOT are the foundation of the whole encyclopedia. That is how this place works.
It seems to me that you are saying: "Source X says A, and source Y says B; in my view A+B - C, and I want to talk about "C" in Wikipedia. If that is accurate, what you are doing a special kind of "original research" (as we define that here in Wikipedia) called "synthesis", which is described in the part of the OR policy, here: WP:SYN. If and when a recent review or statement by a major medical/scientific body talks about the relationships among serotonin, gut bacteria, substances made and secreted by gut epithelial and other mucosal cells, and gut motility or lack thereof, we can have content about that in Wikipedia... not until then.
Does that make sense? I am sorry (ahead of time) if that is not pleasing, but that is how Wikipedia works. These policies were established by the community a long time ago, and express the community's consensus of how things work here. (WP:CONSENSUS is the bedrock policy, underneath the foundation of those other policies). Happy to discuss further if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What I put in was not for "getting the word" out, but a link to a significant unknown mechanism for serotonin regulation buried deep in a 12 page journal article with an additional 11 pages of supplemental information. I am synthesizing here in the talk page. What I edited in was without synthesis at all and was left entirely for someone trying to understand serotonin to make sense about.

I was just reading this one, http://www.yeastinfectionadvisor.com/bacilluslaterosporus.html, "The problem is, I can't find these studies, just the charts!! All I can find that has any medical value and is not here say, are numerous studies over on the American Society of Microbiolgy website that have been performed on over 30 substrains of bacillus laterosporus as an insecticide for mosquito's." This is a link that people are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talkcontribs) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

yeastinfectionadvisor.com is not a reliable source for health content.... Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serotonin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

both Infoboxes needed[edit]

I agree with User:Sbharris that both the neurotransmitter infobox and the chemistry infobox should be present in this article, in addition to the "navigational" Template:Neurotransmitters at the bottom of the article. It is an organic chemical compound of biological (neurotransmitter) importance. H Padleckas (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A much better idea would be to simply add a "Chemistry" or "Physical and chemical properties" section (depending on which project MOS's section title is used) and simply cover the chemical data in the prose. The chembox doesn't actually contain much chemical data to begin with, so it would be fairly simple to cover it in the text. Every project MOS for this page (even WP:WikiProject Autism, which defers to MOS:MED) indicates the addition of a chem section anyway. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Trying to avoid covering physical properties like molar mass, solubility, aciditiy, melting point, etc., in prose, is the reason why we have chemboxes in the first place. This one may not have all the properties of the better characterized organic compounds on WP, but it has many, and there is no earthly reason why it should have all of them, eventually. Pretend it's NOT a neurotransmitter. I see that somebody has done the same thing to norepinephrine, and so the physical properties of the substance (which you see in epinephrine) are now simply now missing from norepinephrine! This information deletion is close to vandalism. You can think of all that stuff as a redlink waiting to be filled in.

If you can think of a way to include physical data in a single side box, so that it's ALL in a single box, fine, but that's going to be a very tricky task, and not one that is standardized. SBHarris 00:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

All that stuff is in the PubChem entry, isn't it? I doubt that there is anybody in the entire universe who cares about the melting point of serotonin, but if there is, surely such a person would know enough to look it up on PubChem. It wouldn't be impossible to expand the infobox to contain more information, but I'm averse to cluttering our articles with information that doesn't matter to anybody. All of the information in the neurotransmitter infobox has major importance. Looie496 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
To you, serotonin may be a neurotransmitter. To a chemist, it's a chemical. If you buy a bottle from Sigma you may care very much what the melting point is, as that gives you an index of purity. Sigma may have made a mistake, or last week they may have changed their source to another fly-by-night supplier in China. If so, they will hardly tell YOU (Sigma's sourcing is the most closely guarded secret they have). The MSDS doesn't have that manufacturer info. The QC sheet may have claims, but SIGMA only puts in what their supplier tells them, and (again) they aren't going to tell you their supplier. Sigma doesn't sell chemicals really-- they are an information broker and chemicals is how you get the information. Sigma is a middleman retailer between you and hundreds of supplier/jobbers and manufacturers who you'd deal with directly-- if you knew who they were-- and cut Sigma out of the loop.

If you are making a derivative of serotonin, you also want to know the M.P. of the first crystals you get back, to see if you merely got your starting reagent. Your other comment mystifies me. Why would anybody look up the mass of the proton on Wikipedia when they can go to CODATA? If Wikipedia deleted all info you could look up someplace else, there would be little left of Wikipedia. SBHarris 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But would a chemist who wanted to do something like that really look at Wikipedia for the information? Looie496 (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. If you Google it, you get Wikipedia. On the other hand PubChem actually does not have serotonin's melting point, as best I can tell: [1]. So this is looking very bad indeed for your argument. SBHarris 01:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It would look bad if I actually believed that anybody would actually use the information. I don't find that hypothetical usage case plausible. Looie496 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclature[edit]

Hello everyone. Should not the nomenclature of this molecule be 3-(2-aminoethyl)indol-6-ol? If it's a mistake, it should be corrected so high school students won't get low marks on their assignments. ;) If it isn't, tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.217.249 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In IUPAC nomenclature, the numbering is assigned as depicted in File:Indole numbered.svg. The hydroxy group is on the 5-position, not the 6-position. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Serotonin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Addition of Serotonergic Cell Groups to Nervous System Section[edit]

I intend to add this section to the nervous system section as the separate stub article does not entirlely seem necessary.

Serotonergic cell groups Serotonergic cell groups refer to collections of neurons in the central nervous system that have been demonstrated by histochemical fluorescence to contain the neurotransmitter serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine).[1] Since they are for the most part localized to classical brainstem nuclei, particularly the raphe nuclei, they are more often referred to by the names of those nuclei than by the B1-9 nomenclature. These cells appear to be common across most mammals and has two main regions in which they develop; one forms in the mesencephlon and the rostral pons (find articles/links) and the other in the medulla oblongata and the caudal pons.[2]

Nine serotonergic cell groups have been identified.[3]

B1 cell group Cell group B1 occupies the midline nucleus raphes pallidus and adjacent structures in the caudal medulla oblongata of the rodent[4] and the primate.[3]

B2 cell group Cell group B2 occupies the midline nucleus raphes obscurus and adjacent structures in the caudal medulla oblongata of the rodent[4] and the primate.[3]

B3 cell group Cell group B3 occupies the midline nucleus raphes magnus and adjacent structures in the caudal medulla oblongata of the rodent[4] and the primate.[3] Its boundary with the serotonergic group B1 is indistinct.

B4 cell group Cell group B4 is located in the floor of the fourth ventricle, in the vicinity of the vestibular nuclei and abducens nucleus in the rat[4] and in the caudal interstitial nucleus of the medial longitudinal fasciculus of the mouse.[5] A comprehensive study of monoaminergic cell groups in the macaque and the squirrel monkey did not identify a B4 cell group distinct from other groups in the region.[3]

B5 cell group Cell group B5 is located in the midline pontine raphe nucleus and adjacent areas in the rodent[4] and the primate.[3]

B6 cell group Cell group B6 is located in the floor of the fourth ventricle dorsal to, and between, the right and left medial longitudinal fasciculus of the pons in the primate[3] and the rodent.[4] and forms the caudal portion of the dorsal raphe nucleus.

B7 cell group Cell group B7 is a group of cells located in the central gray of the pons, the dorsal raphe nucleus and adjacent structures in the primate[3] and the rodent.[4]

B8 cell group Cell group B8 is located in the dorsal part of the median raphe nucleus (superior central nucleus) and adjacent structures of the pontine reticular formation of the rodent[4] and the primate.[3]

B9 cell group Cell group B9 is a group of cells located in the pontine tegmentum, ventral to serotonergic group B8. In the nonhuman primate they are found in the ventral part of the superior central nucleus and adjacent structures.[3] In the rodent they have a more lateral location within the medial lemniscus of the pons and dorsal and medial to it.,[4][5]

EIhannifin (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claims?[edit]

Dr. Marazziti and his researchers at the University of Pisa in Italy found that depletion of serotonin also occurs in people who have recently fallen in love. This leads to the obsessive component associated with early stages of love.

Should this statement and source be trusted? It doesn't sound right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talkcontribs) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't even find the source. So I removed the info.--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fuxe K; Hoekfelt T; Ungerstedt U. "Morphological and functional aspects of central monoamine neurons". International Review of Neurobiology. 13: 93–126. doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(08)60167-1.
  2. ^ R. Nieuwenhuys, J. Voogd, C. Van Huijzen, The human central nervous system: a synopsis and atlas (Springer Science & Business Media, , 2007).
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Felten DL; Sladek JR Jr. (1983). "Monoamine distribution in primate brain V. Monoaminergic nuclei: anatomy, pathways and local organization". Brain Research Bulletin. 10 (2): 171–284. doi:10.1016/0361-9230(83)90045-x. PMID 6839182.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Dahlstrom A; Fuxe K (1964). "Evidence for the existence of monoamine-containing neurons in the central nervous system". Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. 62: 1–55. PMID 14229500.
  5. ^ a b Paxinos G; Franklin KBJ (2001). The Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. OCLC 493265554.