Talk:Selegiline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Selegiline article.
Article policies
Selegiline is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Actually, already at 10mg/day, the MAO-B inhibition is 90% or better, and a handful of people have reported hypertensive reactions at 10mg/day, so it's not unlikely that there is a sliding transition from full selectivity (<10mg/day) to no selectivity (>60mg/day). As a nonselective MAOI, it is administered at doses from 20mg/day and up, with 20mg-60mg being the effective range.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 12:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish the good doctor would notify people as to why contributions are removed from articles from non-bias and medical sources with references. I am getting a little bit tired of wasting my time attempting to contribute to the content of articles and having it wiped out almost as soon as it is added. I think this is unfair and unnecessary. Pogue 11:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of external links. It is not a replacement for information that could be included in the article. External links should be used for examples (e.g. of information already mentioned in the article) or as references (to support claims made in the article). Your links add none of that. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] incorrect structure image

It's a carbon short - the group attached to the nitrogen should be a propargyl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rndm (talk • contribs) .

Oh crap. It is incorrect. I'll upload an accurate image tomorrow. --Bk0 (Talk) 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The image is now correct (no time like the present). Thank you for catching that mistake. --Bk0 (Talk) 06:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orally Disintegrating Tabet for Selegiline (Zelapar) approved by FDA

Zelapar, produced by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, was approved by the FDA in June 2006 for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease.

[edit] image

Let's adopt for all chemical structures the official ChemIDPlus images and avoid changes. Jclerman 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather poor quality image. What exactly is "official" about ChemIDPlus? --Bk0 (Talk) 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"Official" is my abbreviation for the federal and private databases to which all numbers in the caption refer: Identifiers, i.e., CAS number 14611-51-9 [14611-52-0] (HCl), [2079-54-1] (deprenyl.HCl), [4530-70-5] ((+-)-isomer), [1205-70-5] ((+-)-isomer, HCl), [2323-36-6] (cpd w/o isomeric designation; deprenyl), [4528-51-2] ((S)-isomer), [4528-52-3] ((S)-isomer, HCl) ATC code N04BD01 PubChem 26757 DrugBank APRD00525 Chemical data Formula C13H17N
The image is of poor quality because I can't generate a better one from the BMP file given by ChemIdPlus. Feel free to get a better image. Feel free to retrieve also the 3-D images and include them if you think they are useful. Jclerman 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to some of the USA federal databases:

What's wrong with the image I just added? Why replace it with the poor quality image from ChemIDPlus? I think mine's better - it's fully skeletal and hi-resolution.
Ben 19:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's adopt for all chemical structures the CAS-ChemID-NLM standard images and avoid changes. Jclerman 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is of poor quality because I can't generate a better one from the BMP file given by ChemIdPlus. Feel free to generate a better image. Feel free to retrieve also the 3-D images and include them if you think they are useful. The links are shown above. IMHO the standard database image is more appropriate. Jclerman 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should adopt images from a federal database when user-contributed images are higher quality and (possibly) more accurate/higher resolution. As long as the images are available under a compatible free license the best one should be used (which may or may not be a ChemIDPlus image). --Bk0 (Talk) 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Jclerman: why do you think the standard database image is more appropriate? I don't think it is. Please explain your reasoning. I'm going to leave your image where it is because I don't want to get into a revert war. You may have a very valid reason for preferring the ChemIdPlus image, but it would be better to discuss the matter and for all of us (plus, perhaps, the Wikiproject on Chemistry) to agree on a course of action. You're taking a rather unilateral approach, which tends not to suit Wikipedia.
Ben 22:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Here's a gallery of the images we have to choose from, with comments:

A: Fully skeletal structure.
B: ChemIDPlus image. JPEG formatting makes image look scruffy when resized. Low-resolution. Partially skeletal.
C: Fully skeletal structure, this one in the same configuration as the ChemIDPlus image.
D: User-made version of the ChemIDPlus image. Partially skeletal.
E: 3D ball-and-stick model.
F: Partially skeletal structure. One alkyne carbon is shown with a non-180° bond angle, which is incorrect.

Personally, I prefer fully skeletal images, because they are elegant and uncluttered. I think abelling terminal carbons and hydrogens is redundant - if you understand skeletal notation, you don't need them. If you don't understand skeletal notation, you won't understand the rest of the structure, so those carbons and hydrogens which are labelled don't help you very much

I think other users of this article will appreciate the lack of clutter in the fully skeletal images, which is why I am championing them. Fully skeletal structures are also standard in most chemistry, biology and medicine textbooks beyond high school level, and selegiline is a compound that is more likely to be discussed in advanced studies. They are also standard in scientific journals and reference works.

Ben 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with fully skeletal images, and I personally feel the first image in the gallery above is preferable however it should be edited to show stereochemistry. Pharmaceutical selegiline is not racemic as far as I understand. The image from ChemIDPlus is poor quality and the other images are either unnecessarily contorted or inaccurate. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The first image does show stereochemistry - click on it to see.
Ben 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that one must be internally consistent. The article's chembox has a link to an image in PubChem which is not the same as the one in ChemId. The one in PubChem should be consistent with the one in CAS which is not online. This is the one linked to the compound in the chembox:

Image:PubChem.png

Interesting theme and nice to see a new player in Jclerman. "Let's adopt for all chemical structures " seems to beg for discussion at Wikiproject on Chemistry. Other comments - some of above arguments seem US-centric and pharma-oriented. Also, it seems that we've been doing pretty well image-wise, but I am willing to be educated.--Smokefoot 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The .jpg image that is currently in the article (B) is clearly inferior to the other ones in the gallery above. There is no reason not to replace it. The images that Ben has created fit the guidelines set out by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and are used probably hundreds of chemistry articles. My preference is A, but C would be fine to if it's desirable to keep consistency among phenethylamine articles. The image at Emsam should be replaced similarly as well. 148.177.1.213 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pharmaceutical selegiline

Correct. It's no racemic: "ELDEPRYL (selegiline hydrochloride) is a levorotatory acetylenic derivative of phenethylamine. It is commonly referred to in the clinical and pharmacological literature as l-deprenyl." [From the manufacturer's info.]

Jclerman 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

L-deprenyl is (obviously) not racemic, and is what the brands selegiline and eldepryl contain. Speaking of which, why is this page not called L-deprenyl? Anyway, a racemic mixture would mostly be useful in the treatment of ADHD, as the d-isomer is a potent and highly lipophilic dopamine reuptake inhibitor that metabolizes to d-methamphetamine, IIRC. Zuiram 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

deprenyl is published as making several species live longer Shattering the Barriers of Maximum Life Span: An Interview with Dr. Joseph Knoll

This truly remarkable drug has also been shown to increase the maximum lifespan of laboratory animals by close to forty percent.

[edit] l-methamphetamine

As of several months ago, the article stated that the selegiline metabolite l-methamphetamine is inactive, meaning that it is minimally psychoactive. Recently the article was edited (I believe by Jclerman) to the current text: "Selegiline is partly metabolized to l-methamphetamine, an active stereoisomer of methamphetamine in vivo".

I believe this is incorrect, as the methamphetamine article states: "L-methamphetamine (also called levmetamfetamine and desoxyephedrine) has nasal decongestant activity and no abuse potential. This is the active ingredient in the US Vicks Inhaler." Also, l-methamphetamine is not produced illicitly for abuse purposes (the most common precursors used result in d-methamphetamine). For this reason I will edit this information to make it clear that l-methamphetamine has little or no abuse potential and the use of selegiline can not result in a methamphetamine-like intoxication. The use of the term 'active' and 'inactive' is admittedly vague and will be changed. --Bk0 (Talk) 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

L-methamphetamine is orally active, etc., but you need a four times as high dose (compared to d-methamphetamine) to get the same level of CNS stimulation, meaning you need several 10mg tablets of selegiline to get the same effect as a single 5mg tablet of desoxyn (or even dexedrine).
Also, l-meth is more peripherally active than d-meth.
It is quite possible to get the CNS stimulant effect from it, particularly since the MAOI activity will potentiate it, but it requires a fairly high dose, and you'd have to be pretty desperate. There's a million other things one can abuse. As readily available as meth is in Japan, I fail to see why they'd latch onto something like l-dep... Zuiram 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any references for that? I've never heard of anyone successfully abusing selegiline for meth-like effects. In fact, combining sympathomimetic stimulants and MAOIs (which high-dose selegiline would be) is extraordinarily dangerous, often resulting in hypertensive crises. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1-amphetamine?

Should this be L-amphetamine (and L-meth.) instead of 1- ? I think the referenced web site has the error in the abstract, probably mistook a lowercase l for a 1. I don't have access to the article to verify and I'm not sure so I won't correct it. Moo (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)