Talk:Pheromone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
To-do list for Pheromone: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • write section about types of pheromones, could be translated from fr.wiki (translation has been requested) - DONE! :)
  • translate relevant parts from de.wikipedia
  • expand, expand, expand...
  • remember to supply inline citations
  • write a part of the chemical structure of pheromones
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (December 14, 2005) by Nature. It was found to have 2 errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors indicates the errors are now corrected

Contents

[edit] some stuff to data-mine for inclusion in article

some stuff to data-mine for inclusion in article:

-- 65.49.122.130 00:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction section

I've removed the 'pheromones in fiction' section, as it contributed nothing to a scientific understanding of pheromones. There are more than enough articles on wikipedia with Star Trek and Red Dwarf trivia. It has no place in a scientific article. Nomist 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but the whole article is gone. :( Can someone fix this quick.

[edit] Junk

Most of this article is garbage. Unsigned by 70.22.34.105 at 00:52, 8 December 2004

Then stop complaining and fix it yourself. This is a wiki, just to remind you. Aoi 07:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] power of human pheromones

About the power of human pheromones I found this interesting text:

"(Psychiatric Annals Excerpt Pge.57) [...] Thus, in this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, human pheromones caused a statistically significant and distinct increase in those romantic behaviors in which a woman plays a major role... These findings suggest an increased sexual attractiveness of the men without an influence on the men's sexual motivation, further supporting the hypothesis of the pheromonal nature of apocrine secretions in humans. Practitioners should use skepticism and discrimination in recommending pheromone products to their sexual therapy patients. Any products claiming that they are an "aphrodisiac" should be avoided because this is a drug claim that is regarded by the Food and Drug Administration as illegal and no such studies have been reported. Many commercial products claiming they contain pheromone ingredients may actually contain the previously discussed boar pheromone and may act as a repellent. To date, the only product tested under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions with a study published in a peer reviewed journal is Athena Institute's synthesized human male pheromone cosmetic fragrance additive. In this study, discussed above, 74% of the heterosexual men using the pheromone for 6 weeks recorded increased romantic attention from women compared with their own 2-week baseline. Not an aphrodisiac, these products are cosmetics that apparently work to increase romantic attention from others."

In the Athena website you can found the details of the claimed scientific study/ies.

I'ld like to know if we can believe to these study/ies...

i think they are as believable as those "enlarge your penis" adds. Pheromones are like this catchy advertise for selling stuff like colognes for example, through the 80s many products assured its user that since it contained pheromones, it would make them irresistible. (if we create our own pheromones by ourselves, why would we need extra pheromones??... that makes as much sense as saying that extra cromosomes makes us smarter or stronger... wich doesnt, it gives you gigantism and other sorts of deformities.)
why would you need extra pheromones? possibly because you are a girly-man and dont produce enough testosterone, etc. but what do you know? you're not an expert. read some research. pdf link --Wedge 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The above link athena institute which is quoted above is from a company that sells human phermone body sprays. Travb (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

Reviewer: Olle Anderbrant, Professor of Ecology, Lund University, Sweden.

  • One might get the impression that a pheromone is a substance, while it usually consists of several in a blend.
Corrected 22 Dec. 2005
  • 2nd paragraph. The fact that the confusion acts on the ability to find a mate, not to lay eggs per se, is missing
Corrected 23 Dec. 2005

[edit] from the French article

(See fr:Phéromone) I could use some help with the terms in English, please! I'm a chemist, not an expert! Csari 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial pheromones

Laid down in the environment, these pheromones mark the boundaries of an organism's territory. In dogs, these hormones are present in the urine, which they deposit on landmarks serving to mark the perimeter of the claimed territory.

[edit] Trail pheromones

These pheromones are common in social insects. For example, ants mark their paths with these pheromones, which are non-volatile hydrocarbons.

[edit] Alarm pheromones

Volatile substances released by an organism when attacked by a predator, that trigger flight (in aphids) or aggression (in bees) in members of the same species. Pheromones also exist in plants; certain plants emit alarm pheromones when grazed upon, resulting in tanin production in neighboring plants. These tanins make the plants less appetizing for the herbivore, causing it to relocate frequently.

[edit] Sex pheromones

In animals, sex pheromones indicate the availability of the female for breeding. Certain butterflies can detect a potential mate from as much as 10km away.

[edit] Epideictic pheromones

Recognized in insects, these pheromones are different than territory pheromones. "Females who lay their eggs in these fruits deposit these mysterious substances in the vicinity of their clutch to signal to other females of the same species so that they will clutch elsewhere." H. Fabre (translated from the French)

[edit] Aggregation pheromones

Produced by one or the other sex, these pheromones attract individuals of both sexes.

[edit] Other pheromones (not yet classified)

This classification, based on the effects on behavior, remains artificial. Pheromones fill many additional functions.

  • Nasonov pheromones (worker bees)
  • Royal pheromones (bees)
  • Calming (appeasement) pheromones (mammals)

[edit] question about www.pheromonereport.com

This link was previously posted:

I have moved it here because I'm unable to validate the source of this article. I can't tell from the domain name or information within the article whether this is a high school science project or a project by a well-known academic.

I used Google's link search and couldn't find anything linking to this article, either, causing me to wonder if it was link-spam of some sort. The domain doesn't LOOK commercial, but having a domain solely for one article, instead of having it hanging off the scientist's schools's .edu domain seems odd. Previous editor Daladum, could you comment?

Thanks! --- Csari 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created this web page, and you are correct it is not a commercial website. The website is quite new, so that's probably why it's not showing up in Google yet. I understand and share your concern to maintain the quality of Wikipedia, but I think it is unfair to call it "link spam", that is not the intention.

I think the link is possibly more valid than some of the others that are included. If the consensus is to omit it, so be it, but I would appreciate if negative references were not made without good foundation. I appreciate the work that all the editors do.

Thanks for the response. Since you created the site, perhaps you could comment on the questions about about the author of the study? -- Csari 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional information: http://www.di-dehydroepiandrosterone.info/

[edit] More link spam

A friend of mine went through an interesting hunt today. He got a popup that linked to a "review" of pheromone products. That review was clearly biased, and ultimately recommended a product based on one particular chemical ("Di-Dehydroepiandrosterone", trade name "Pherlure"). The only link in the article that wasn't to the vendor was to an article summary from a University of Chicago report regarding Pherlure. The only page in that domain was that one review... it was the top page, and there's no subordinate links.

The article summary doesn't mention any professors, any journals, and Pherlure isn't mentioned anywhere on the U-Chicago website. Furthermore, the URL to that review is in "archives", but there's no archives link on the summary website's top page. The top page, in fact, is actually nothing more than a purpose-built RSS aggregator for science articles. Other than the RSS feed and the "report summary", there's no other pages on the entire website-- at least, not according to Google's spidering. The only page that Google knows of that links to this faux report summary is the original review.

Now, we found that the Wikipedia Pheromone article links to it. The revision was made 18 January 2006 by an IP that hasn't made any other contribs. The comment was, "Important study added, maybe should also be incorporated into article?".

This appears to be the work of a fairly devious link spammer. A reasonable person performing a cursory examination may not have noticed these discrepancies. It's fairly disheartening to see that it takes this much vigilance to keep Wikipedia clean.

Anyway, I've removed the link, but I'm describing my justification here in full.

-- Piquan 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch, Piquan! -- Csari 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly useful reference

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repellant pheromones

I'm trying to cite the addition I made about the repellant pheromones, but the Nature article requires a subscription to the site.

I found these:

  • (2005). "'No entry' signal in ant foraging. Nature 438. [1] (PDF file).

But they don't seem to clearly list the authors. Could someone help me with this? The PDF should do, but I can't find a definite author.

In addition, this [2] mentiones repellant pheromones in bees as well.

We have an article on Allomones, but it is sorely lacking in references as well. --DanielCD 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like someone beat me to it. --DanielCD 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studies needed to go into the article

There's another one that I'll add later, once I've found the reference again.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


To the best of my knowledge, the thesis that I have linked to below is the latest and best updated phd thesis on human pheromones. A thesis from a swedish university is also peer reviewed before published. Its free to download and I guess that it will answer at least some of the questions asked on this site if anyone have the time.

http://publications.uu.se/abstract.xsql?lang=en&dbid=5880

[edit] Template that lists pheromones

It would also be nice to have a template at the end of the article that lists all the different substances that are used as pheromones and have articles written about them, but only if we can't mention them all in the main body. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rvs regarding human pheromones

There's been some edits and reverts quite recently regarding the role of human pheromones. TogetherinParis: Your edits appear to be based largely on the papers of B. Nicholson, who in turn lists you as a citation. Can you elaborate on your role regarding his research? It might help if we had an idea of the relevant background. --Piquan 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

TogetherinParis is B. Nicholson. My email is TogetherinParis@gmail.com. You have no right to keep my work as your private property. It would be best to restore my commentary as I wrote it.
I didn't remove your commentary; somebody else did.
Where is it? I want it back, please.
However, I was considering doing so, because it might not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In particular, in scientific and medical articles, the policy is to only include that which represents peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
My articles in the British Journal of Dermatology and Medical Hypotheses were peer-reviewed. I've worked in the field for 23 years, attended medical school four years. Perhaps you have specific questions that I can answer?

Your articles were published in Medical Hypotheses, which intentionally does not follow the standard peer review process, and you didn't cite anything else which does represent scientific consensus. Furthermore, since you (as Nicholson Science) sell a pheromone-based product, then there could be reason to question the neutrality of your findings. One of Wikipedia's most important rules is to maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore, it might be useful if you could also cite some articles, not written by you (so that the article can demonstrate that this is a point of view held by multiple scientists), published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which support your theories. Commentary is not what we put in these articles; Wikipedia's policy is to include that which represents scientific consensus. --Piquan 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As reseacher in the mammalian pheromone field, i don't think i'm sticking my neck out when i say that the existance of human pheromones (in the sense which Karlson and Butenandt defined them) is highly disputed by the community. The functional evidence for their hypothetical existance is far from convincing and there are none so far characterised. What the pheromone-based product industry call a pheromone and what is scientifically classed as a proven human pheromone are very different things. I support the article as it stands and would insist on peer reviewed sources in reputable journals for any further claims on human pheromones. Rockpocket 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The cure for juvenile delinquency is a man's face grease p.o. about 100 mg. Wipe the end of your nose on some chewing gum, give it to a delinquent relative, and observe for yourself. Pheromone receptor cells, microciliary cells or microvilar cells, cover much of the human upper respiratory system, not just the VNO. Check any histology textbook. Karlson and Butenandt's Bombykol is as specific to silk moths as sebaleic acid is specific to human beings. cis-cis 5,8 octadecadienoic acid is unique in all nature. The stereochemical oddities of the 800 or so skin surface lipid are legion, typical of pheromones in other species, peculiar to our species, peculiar to sex, peculiar to age, and peculiar to the individual. They've even been used forensicly. Positron Emission Tomography demonstrates responses peculiar to sex and sexual orientation on exposure to pheromones. To test whether human pheromones exist, try this: Wipe a clean dry piece of chewing gum across your mother's face. Have your boyfriend chew the gum. Now kiss him. Viola! Jealousy!
Thanks for your input, Rockpocket. Since you understand the issue, it may be useful to describe the distinction between the industry term and the scientific term. --Piquan 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
From the article: Peter Karlson and Adolf Butenandt [...] proposed the term to describe chemical signals from conspecifics which elicit innate behaviours
Quoting Rockpocket: As reseacher in the mammalian pheromone field, i don't think i'm sticking my neck out when i say that the existance of human pheromones (in the sense which Karlson and Butenandt defined them) is highly disputed by the community.
There are clear examples in references I've contributed on these talk pages and in studies of substances such as vasopressin and oxytocin, one recently in Nature (the journal) (yes, Nature does occasionally publish slightly wacky or outright faulty papers, but the design on that occasion held water). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The key word is innate. There are plenty of semiochemicals that have 'odors' that are detected by the main olfactory epithelium in humans, just as there are in many other species. Anyone who has stood in a hot subway carriage can testify to that. But distinguishing between odors and pheromones is the difficult part. In mice for example, we have a molecular, neuronal and anatomical handle on the differences (genes like TrpC2, vomeronsasal receptors, molecules like the Novotny compounds [3] and, of course, the vomeronasal organ and accessory olfactory bulb themselves) but most of these don't exist in humans or, if they do, we don't have the tools to investigate them experimentally. Thus, to prove a compound in humans is a pheromone (in the classic sense) we would want to identify the compound, show it is excreted in humans, that the compound has a putative human receptor in a sensory organ, that a known downstream cascade through a neural network elicits a neuroendocrime response that influences an innate, non learned behaviour, and that we can demonstrate that behaviour in a controlled environment. Show me a compound that has papers published, in peer reviewed journals, describing the above and i'll accept we have definative proof of a human pheromone. Sure, the MHC work and the McClintock studies hints at certain aspects of the above experiment, but none of them prove that human pheromones exist. Rockpocket 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not rocket science. Jealousy is an innate, non-learned behavior. Send me your address. I'll send your wife some chewing gum with my pheromone on it. Let her chew it, then you kiss her and tell us if you are jealous & suspicious or not. Juvenile Delinquency is an innate, non-learned behavior. Rub some mature male face grease on dry fresh chewing gum, have the delinquent chew it and the delinquency stops. You can run white cell counts in immune suppressed people with and without skin surface lipids p.o. We can check out pheromonal improvement in the autoimmune diseases, too. This is a home remedy. It works great. Try it yourself why don't you? It is completely straightforward. Perhaps Max Planck was right when he suggested that science advances only after the old imbeciles finally succumb.

Please be careful of violating WP:NPA. Thank you. Rockpocket 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the term

As this reads currently, it makes no sense: certainly the "defined introduced the term" bit. But I'm not sure what was actually intended...the first sentence already says that two reseachers "introduced" term, the second implies they had introduced it into something else other than English (but what?)

Good point. I've cleaned it up (i think the editor meant they introduced it into the scientific literature) and will add a quote from the paper itself tomorrow, when i can get hold of a copy. Rockpocket 06:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal articles?

I noticed that news releases from the NYTimes, discover.com, and Cornell University are listed under journal articles. I'm not questioning the integrity of these sources, but news and journal articles are two separate things. A journal is a periodical that has a particular academic focus, and the most reliable of these are peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a better title. -- horsedreamer 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; on the other hand, somebody has to eventually do the work (i.e. add real peer-reviewed sources). I trust we're all very good at criticising articles, or we wouldn't be here... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit of Terence McKennna

I just did an edit of the para near the beginning on Terence McKenna, because I was almost certain the wording was wrong. The original wording "between, as opposed to among a single, species" didn't make any sense ("among a single species" in specific doesn't make sense). I'm assuming--although I don't know McKenna's work--that he was arguing for cross-species pheromones, as opposed to pheromones that are both emitted and sensed by individuals of the same species. (The two sentences following the one I changed seem to confirm this reading.)

--69.140.23.118 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with the material, that would have been my reading, too. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Might be simpler to use the term conspecific instead? Rockpocket 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trail Pheromones

This section has a redundancy with ants, and furthermore contradicts itself. It says both that the pheromones laid down are non-volatile, and that they also need to be constantly replaced because they evaporate. Unless the ants are visually observing these pheromones on the ground, they must be volatile, as are most hydrocarbons. Please edit!