Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid [edit]

Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You might try WT:CHEM as well. Sizeofint (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.
If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If anyone is willing to do a review of the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Pharmacology section at FAC to determine if it's adequately sourced, accurate w.r.t. the cited sources, and complete + comprehensive enough for a featured pharmacology article (i.e., determine whether or not it satisfies WP:FA criteria 1b, 1c, and 1d: comprehensiveness, well-researched, and neutral), it'd help.
The medical content (i.e., the uses/side effects sections) has already been reviewed by Jytdog and the chemistry section is currently being reviewed by Nergaal, so the pharmacology content is really the only section that still needs to be reviewed by an editor who is familiar with the subject area. I've asked an experienced FAC reviewer to do a review of the article prose (criterion 1a), so there's no need to look at or do a review of how well the text in that section is written.

Since roughly half of the pharmacodynamics section covers research involving HMB-induced anabolic signaling cascades, this diagram will probably be useful for context on how the protein kinases and related proteins that are mentioned in that section (IGF-1, Akt, ERK1, ERK2, mTOR/mTORC1, p70S6 kinase [marked as S6K1 in the diagram], and 4EBP1) are involved in the mTOR signaling pathway. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October[edit]

I am inviting participants in WikiProject Pharmacology to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

  • The conference includes a track called "Health care and science", so submissions with that theme are particularly welcome
  • We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
  • We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
  • More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
  • Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am advocating for medicine to be well represented at this event. If any participants at this WikiProject wants to talk by video about the conference, I am available to meet by video chat if you email me. I might, for example, support anyone in making a presentation submission if you are unfamiliar with the wiki conference format. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Psychoactive Substances Act, infoboxes and OR[edit]

A while back, I created the article on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (PSA for short), a law in the UK that attempts to ban "legal highs", which is interpreted by the government to include synthetic/"designer" drugs that are analogues of existing banned narcotic drugs. I now periodically get notified about new articles that link to the PSA page, which are often articles about exactly the sort of compounds that the law is intended to ban/restrict. The editors of these pages say they are controlled under the PSA, but unlike traditional drug control legislation like the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there isn't any determination that something is a banned "psychoactive substance". Editors adding this to infoboxes or articles are presumably then adding original research, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's rules.

One of the problems with the PSA that its critics allege is that there's not really any way for someone to know whether a substance is banned under it (because of the lack of scientific precision in the wording of the law). Alas, that criticism also applies to anyone (Wikipedia included) attempting to say whether a substance is controlled under it. If the police and the prosecuting authorities don't even know whether a drug is banned, it seems difficult for Wikipedia to do likewise. Such substances live in a sort of land of legal uncertainty: unless a prosecution is brought against someone for supplying the substance, we don't really know whether it is or isn't a psychoactive substance. If a Wikipedia article on a drug mentions that it is controlled under the PSA, should we remove that as original research if it does not have a source? If a noted expert in psychopharmacology (e.g. members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) say that it is likely covered by the PSA, that's probably enough. If a politician responsible for drugs policy (say, the Home Secretary) says it is banned under the PSA, that's probably enough for Wikipedia to say it is. But without that, we're really just guessing. I thought I'd leave this here as a discussion point as the rules around pharmacology infoboxes isn't really my bailiwick. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Meodipt and Aethyta as they seem the most active in this area. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
We had a related discussion on this topic a while ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_10#Drug_laws. I think the consensus was to leave it out of the infobox and explain it in the text. Sizeofint (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Physical and chemical properties section name[edit]

Currently this MOS includes the following recommended section:

  1. Physical and chemical properties
    Include information on the chemical structure, stereochemistry, and chemical composition of the drug (e.g., free base, hydrochloride salt, etc.). Basic physicochemical properties such as melting pointing, solubility and other raw data should be placed in the drugbox.
    1. Synthesis (only necessary for articles tagged by {{WikiProject Chemicals}})
    2. Detection in body fluids

I find the Physical and chemical properties heading somewhat inappropriate. Synthesis is not a fundamental property of a drug as there are many ways of synthesizing it. Detection is also not a property. Hence I thinkPhysical and chemical properties should be renamed Chemistry. Chemistry includes both synthetic and analytical (detection) chemistry. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I support the argument that Chemistry is a better name; more accurate (including synethesis and detection) and more concise. Klbrain (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support changing to "Chemistry" - more apt for subheadings + generally more relevant to content that's commonly included there in drug articles. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above arguments. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Due to the unanimous support for this change thus far, I went ahead and updated MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED accordingly: Special:diff/722095913/735788998 and Special:diff/735092668/735789004. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The only issue with that for MEDMOS is that the sectioning is used in articles about medical devices ; for those "physical properties" is a more useful title, so for implementing this in MEDMOS that should remain stated as an option. But otherwise "chemistry" is more straightforward. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"First in class" ?[edit]

Our article on tigecycline describes it as a "first in class" glycylcycline; I initially thought that meant it was the first glycylcycline to be approved for use on humans, but I've since found various research papers describing it as "first-in-class", so apparently that's not it (and many other antibiotics are similarly described).

What does "first-in-class" mean in this context? Thanks. DS (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"First-in-class" usually means that a compound is the/a prototype member of a class of structural analogs that have analogous pharmacological effects. In the instances where I've encountered the term, the compound that is called that is usually the parent compound of the structural class.
If you're referring to something like how PMID 16609746 describes it ("Tigecycline (Tygacil): the first in the glycylcycline class of antibiotics"), this is referring to what PMID 16982286 asserts: "Tigecycline, the first glycylcycline to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is a structural analogue of minocycline that was designed to avoid tetracycline resistance mediated by ribosomal protection and drug efflux." Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Effervescent tablets[edit]

Our article is just named after the tablets like Alka-Seltzer but there are effervescent powders and granules too. (see search for "effervescent" at eMC here

Trying to think of the best name for all of them.

  • Effervescents
  • Effervescent formulations
  • Effervescent dosage forms
  • Effervescent preparations
  • Others?

Have found all of these in the literature... what do you think is best for a rename? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep it simple. The most common effervescent formulation are tablets, hence I think effervescent tablets is appropriate. Or how about plop plop fizz fizz ;-) Boghog (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Effervescent medicines would keep it general without getting too geeky? Certainly in the UK, powders are reasonably common. Le Deluge (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-process categories[edit]

It looks like User:Mario Castelán Castro has been manually trying to move around some of the psycho-active drug categories outside the WP:CFD process. It's not my area at all, I came across it whilst doing some non-topic-related category work but could someone take a look at his recent edits? I've no idea whether he's being helpful or not, but looking at his Talk page history it looks like he's not the greatest consensus-builder. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reorganized some categories. Diffs for categories do not show the relevant differences. Therefore, you can't easily see the difference that I have made. However, you can see the end result. The content is now more logically organized. No coverage in topics was lost due to these edits. For example, now psychoactive drugs can be browsed by effects and mechanism of action (those are just 2 examples of several categories I have created which have been populated the same day because they were highly needed to organize otherwise scattered categories).
If you are going to write your opinion on an editor's contribution history, please take the care to look properly instead of just taking a quick glance at the first page of "Special:Contribution". Your criticism to be highly biased against me. I have performed several contributions far overshadowing the pre-existing content in those articles in length and importance. The most recent one is when I added 50,000+ characters with tens of sources from scientific journals about the molecular biology of Skin whitening. More recently, I have been working in building consensus in Talk:Diesel engine.
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
It would have been preferable to obtain consensus before you made your edits. Boghog (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It may be preferable for you. In other words, according to your taste and preferences, which are neither binding on my actions nor especially relevant. The relevant official guideline is WP:BOLD and it clearly states that no such bureaucratic process is required. What I did is a reorganization. No information was lost; if any category looks less populated, it is because I have (1) removed many cases of eponymous overcategorization (for example, Category:Caffeine does not belongs to all the categories that include the article Caffeine; see Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories) (2) moved some categories and articles to sub-categories to keep the articles ordered more logically. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
WP:CONSENSUS is critically important and is policy for the entire project. As a practical matter, making changes to the categorization of a large number of articles is likely to be controversial and it would be prudent to obtain consensus beforehand. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Without repeating what I've said over at WP:MED or what's going on at Mario's talk page - what Boghog said. Wikipedia is founded on consensus, and large-scale messing round with categories is one of those areas where it's pretty much expected that everything goes through WP:CFD. Mario - this is one of those cases where a bit of humility would go a long way, there's no need to be so angry with everyone.Le Deluge (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Now you again pretend that I am the one causing the problem. You are the one making a conflict where there was none.
  1. You were the one to start post the complaints and comments against me in Wikiprojects' talk pages.
  2. It's you the one who expects me to abide by your favorite procedure (“it's pretty much expected [these are weasel words] that everything goes through WP:CFD”).
  3. It's you who wants me to abide by your preferred way of editing as if it was a policy or your opinion was privileged (it is not, your opinion is just another opinion).
  4. Also it's you the one making the unfounded personal remarks against me (“Experience also suggests that people who blank their User Talk page usually do so because they have something to hide about their interactions with other Wikipedians, [...]”).
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC).
The best way of avoiding conflict is to obtain consensus before making potentially controversial changes which you have not done in this case. This is not only my favorite procedure, it is a community wide favorite procedure. Boghog (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

I think it would be useful to go ahead and start a separate discussion about the changes themselves. This isn't comprehensive, but here is an overall picture of the restructuring of the categories:

In addition to this they moved articles from Category:Psychoactive drugs to the newly formed subcategories in line with WP:OVERCAT and also populated some categories with things that weren't categorized. This all looks like basic WP:SUBCAT activity applied to Category:Psychoactive drugs which was filled with an enormous amount of psychoactive drug-related articles and categories. For a look at the category from a few weeks ago, see this archived version. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the category changes were so numerous and generally without comment, it was difficult to figure out the overall intent. Hence the above summary is very useful. I think the new subdivisions generally are reasonable. After the controversy created by renaming List of designer drugs without prior discussion, making large numbers of changes to psychoactive drug categories also without prior discussion was a yellow flag for me. A short note left here explaining the plan would have gone a long way to dispel those concerns. Boghog (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Your final statement though goes both ways, at no point have any of us actually asked them about their edits. I argued their edits were uncontroversial, others argued they were controversial, they were told to start discussions at WP:CFD and at wikiprojects, but none of us ever asked them what they were doing. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Safinamide kinetics[edit]

Has anybody access to this paper? I'd like to confirm the structures of safinamide's metabolites and the relevant enzymes before I add them to the article. It should be on page 2 judging from the fuzzy preview. Also, does the paper mention "O-de-fluorobenzylsafinamide" (NW-1199) as a metabolite? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I can read the Krösser et al. paper - it confirms the safinamide acid (NW-1153), an N-dealkylated acid (NW-1689) and the glucuronide" as main metabolites, but doesn't mention "NW-1199" or "fluorobenzylsafinamide" (did a search on the text for those terms). Perhaps that's from the incomplete Haberfeld reference, but I can't get to that. Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Yes, NW-1199 is from Haberfeld who however doesn't give a structural formula. So it isn't dubious in the article, but it is dubious in this file I just uploaded, so I'll probably have to remove it. Could you double-check my upload with the mentioned paper and tell me what the missing arrow labels are? That would be great! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Of the bland arrow, First "down" arrow is "CYP3A4 (2C19, 2J2, MAO-A)"; third down arrow is "ALDH"; you seem to have the rest fine. ALDH is defined in the text as "aldehyde dehydrogenases" (unsurprisingly). The path to NW-1199 isn't in the Krösser et al. paper (as discussion above). Let me know if you need more. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lolitrem B needs "translation"[edit]

Hello. Can someone please "translate" the above article so normal readers can understand somewhat what the article is about? I've added an {{expert needed}} tag to the article with the |reason= parameter filled in. I originally asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry to do this, but they directed me here because the article is about a neurotoxin. (They did try simplifying the lead before directing me here.) Gestrid (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

i took a shot at making it understandable. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

norepinephrine antagonist[edit]

created, now provide data for articleMinimobiler (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with the user who redirected this quickly to adrenergic antagonist: the same receptors for norepinephrine (noradrenaline) and epinephrine (adrenaline) means that the sets are identical, so it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. However, feel free to fix adrenergic antagonist, which could use more work! Klbrain (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

benzodiazepine biosynthesis[edit]

help fill the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talkcontribs) 14:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in that, because they are exogenous medicinal compounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Any idea what structure this article is about? The link to the developer's website talks about "FKB01MD" which could conceivably be the same thing. The link to PubChem does have "TGBA01AD" as a synonym but is about a pyrimidine nucleoside which is a somewhat unlikely structure for a serotonergic. Nothing found on ChemSpider, UNII, ChEMBL, KEGG, PubMed, ClinicalTrials. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)