Talk:Adrenaline/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Putting the rename into action

Since everything that can be discussed, has been discussed, there would be no benefit from making a move request since this whole talk page is basically one giant move request. There is no reason changes can't be made during mediation, since there is clear consensus, policy and reason in favor of the move, and mediation is not to be used as a stall tactic. Looking at the article, epinephrine and adrenaline are both used a lot in the article, so there is no real reason to change most of the text with exception to some of the stuff at the beginning. I am boldly changing the title to adrenaline because it has more support and obvious benefits. Please correct any double redirects if you find them (however they happen). --WikiDonn (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidonn, there is ongoing mediation on this topic, any attempt to change the article name is grounds for refferal to ArbCom. Ronk01 talk, 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I will also strenuously resist any attempt to preemptively change the article title or text. Besides, the more I look at it, the stronger the argument for epinephrine. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article name is the subject of the current mediation, it would be inappropriate to try to rename the article now. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to continue mediation if all it is going to be used for is a stall tactic. Why is it so hard to simply change something on Wikipedia? There is nothing that says it can't be changed now. It is inappropriate to suggest mediation when one is unwilling to concede in any area even when provided with evidence to the contrary. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time you did any mediation? Bear in mind, the two editors engaging in the mediation process may not be representative of the community at large or the subsection of it who choose to edit this page. Weakopedia (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The mediation has reached the point of going through the policy aspects relating to the name of the article. Somewhat tedious, perhaps, but I see no stalling. My hope is that we will reach some understanding in the mediation and then address the wider community regarding the result. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Beg pardon as an outsider to this fascinating dispute, but where is this mediation, who is taking part in it, andwhy do participants not open an RM or RfC to get outside input rather than arguing in circles? As regards consensus, if this page was an RM, I'd close as no consensus. Fences&Windows 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I found it. I don't understand what there is to mediate. You disagree on the name, but so what? You must get outside views: even if the two of you reach an agreement or compromise, you alone can't be the arbiters of the title of this article. Fences&Windows 16:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not in disagreement on that. But perhaps my post, above, wasn't clear. The mediation, as with all mediations, is between specific individuals. If there is agreement between them, then we will talk about how to address the wider community. That could be through further discussion, on this talk page. Sunray (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Slightly off topic.) Like Fences, I'm also befuddled as to why folks pursued mediation for a debate involving many parties. While I certainly appreciate the mediation team's efforts, it's clear that we will have to achieve community consensus here before we implement any change that was agreed upon during mediation. When the time comes to have that discussion here, I'd much appreciate it if some of my earlier remarks could be addressed. In particular: Talk:Epinephrine#Invoking the common names argument. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation can be a good way to have an in-depth discussion without it being curtailed by a gaggle of people wishing to have their views heard. There are several things to be learned from this talkpage and it's archive - first is that the same arguments are often revisited with different proponents which often does not allow the debate to progress beyond superficiality. This style of approach has lasted seven years, however having read both the article and all the talkpage archives, I still had to do some research to discover the pertinent facts about the history of Adrenaline, why it was named what it is named, who named it, how useage of the word has changed over the years. Despite all the talk over the last seven years it is still not the way where every argument has been rehashed on the talkpage, and there is every reason to suppose that in another seven years we will still have the same superficial arguments but with different editors.

I think you are right, that ultimately community consensus is called for. That means being able to present the most reasoned and well supported argument possible for the community to decide upon, otherwise the community input is only an extension of some of the superficial activity already on this talkpage. I am hoping that the mediation page will serve to collate all the relevant information and present it in such a way that it serves the community in making it's decision.

As far as your previously stated arguments on this page go, as part of the mediation I am trying to represent the views of those editors that have contributed to the debate so far, as well as the views of the portion of society that prefer Adrenaline. It isn't me vs Ronk sharpening our teeth ready for a fight, but a representative from each side of the debate trying to sum up everything in a neutral environment, unencumbered by having to answer questions from ten people at once.

If you have anything specific that you see has not been addressed through mediation that you think is important, then let one of us know I guess - it would be good if the mediation process could address all concerns in a meaningful and lasting way. And regardless of how mediation develops, this article could still use some improvement, as well as the article on Adrenaline Rush being examined, so it isn't like the world has stopped due to mediation starting.

@Fences&Windows - RFC? Check, it's up the page a bit. RM, check, it's just below the RFC. Whole bunch of other acronyms? Check, all over the talkpage. After seven years it is still the same arguing, and an RFC without some work to establish the facts for the RFC to consider will just be an extension of that seven years of arguing. At least the mediation gives us a chance to explore the subject in some detail without just having to defend ourselves against 'the other side' continually. If the end result of the mediation is that the whole matter just gets sent to an RFC, I do not think that we will have wasted any time, instead perhaps have assisted the editors in the RFC in making their community decision. Weakopedia (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't much care which way the decision goes, but I'll offer some observations that seem not to have come up before:

1. The WHO Essential Medicines Library (full text) lists a very few medicines with dual names: "epinephrine (adrenaline)", "methylthioninium chloride (methylene blue)", "methylrosanilinium chloride (gentian violet)", and "potassium ferric hexacyano-ferrate (II)2H20 (Prussian blue)".
2. Each of these represents a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSMED guidance to use the INN, but the resolution of that conflict has been inconsistent.
3. As a United Nations body, the WHO uses British English by policy, so the listing of epinephrine ahead of adrenaline is not just catering to US English. Note the use of "colour" vice "color" and "litre" vice "liter" as examples.
4. There seems, at least to my own perception, to be a distinction in common usage, using "adrenaline" for the naturally produced hormone in the body and "epinephrine" for the pharmaceutical.
5. The Concise OED at "adrenaline" gives the natural hormone first, the drug second, with the etymology from French, not direct from Latin. At "epinephrine" it refers the reader to "adrenaline" for definition and gives the etymology as Greek.

LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. The idea that the UN favour British English may explain the fact that many current WHO publications still write the substance as Adrenaline (Epinephrine) rather than Epinephrine (Adrenaline).

To your second point, Ronk has pointed to an example of a conflict between COMMONNAME and MOSMED (or MOSsomething if not MED) where a different solution was achieved. In your examples there is one preferred term, the other term redirecting to the preferred term. With Nitroglycerin and Glyceryl trinitrate both the common name and the technical name have individual articles. What do you think of that approach? Weakopedia (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in how we draw structures.

In this article and in Catecholamine, we have structure diagrams, for the same compound, but which are drawn differently. The structure represented is the same, but the way it's drawn varies (rotation around one C-C bond, showing or implying the terminal CH3 group). It took me a bit to work through them to convince myself that they are indeed the same. It would be nice if we had a more consistant style. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Though they look much the same, they are stereoisomers, we should probably use one standard image. Ronk01 talk, 14:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise resulting from the mediation.

During the course of the current mediation for this article title, located here, we (Ronk01, WikiDonn, Weakopedia) have noticed that, on average, the name Epinephrine is used primarily for the synthetic drug, whereas Adrenaline is used to refer to the hormone. A similar situation is seen at Nitroglycerine, where nitroglycerine refers to the chemical explosive, and Glyceryl trinitrate is used in a medical context. In that case, two different articles were written, one for the chemical itself, and one, titled Glyceryl trinitrate for the drug usage. What we are proposing here is something very similar, by splitting the article (with proper redirects and cross-links) into Epinephrine (drug) and Adrenaline (hormone) we are able to follow WP:MEDMOS, which requires the use of INN names, and WP:COMMONNAME, which requires that general interest topics (like hormones) use the name most commonly used by the general public. Additionally, a split would encourage further development of materials within each article. For example, the current page focuses heavily on drug usage, with comparatively little material regarding the hormone’s actions, and physiological function. Thus, by splitting the article, we are able to end the dispute, and improve the quality of both pages. Ronk01 talk, 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out adrenaline is used to refer to the drug more than epinephrine is to the hormone, you imply adrenaline is used only in the hormone context. --Nate^t/_c 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, during the course of the mediation, we discovered that in the majority of English speaking populations, Adrenaline is only used in one nation to refer to the drug (the UK) whereas elsewhere the drug is refereed to as Epinephrine (occasionally with legal restrictions on the use of Adrenaline). However, Adrenaline was used to refer to the hormone everywhere except for the medical community, where use of the name is frowned upon (except in the UK) Ronk01 talk, 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The point was the way you phrase it implies adrenaline is ONLY used in the context of a hormone, where as epinephrine is uses in multiple ways, this is inaccurate and has a pov ring to it. --Nate^t/_c 16:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While it would be noted that Adrenaline sees limited use (i.e. UK only) as the drug name in English speaking nations (Epinephrine is not seen in use as the hormone name outside of the medical community (here in the US, most physicians (of which I am one) consider Adrenaline to be a bit of a layman's term, this probably has something to do with the term's connection with "adrenaline junkies"), this proposal is the only real way to end the dispute, as policy is extremely contradictory in this matter. Ronk01 talk, 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nate makes the point that adrenaline is used, in some cases, to refer to the drug. It seems to me that we need to be clear that this is so and provide articles that are both sensitive to common usage as well as educative as to the medical uses of the two terms. Sunray (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple explanation in the lead would be appropriate. Ronk01 talk, 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Move

Epinephrine -> Adrenaline --70.134.48.188 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

TZhis matter has already been settled through a two month mediation process, we are in the process of splitting the page. Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay so America always wins

In articles to do with colour the incorrect American spelling was used, in the car articles the American term automobile is used, and in this article Epinephrine is used instead of Adrenaline. Why not give other spellings a chance for once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.59.77 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I would remind you that the spelling color is correct in American English. Other than that, please see WP:Spelling for details. However, Epinephrine is not simply a spelling difference, it's a different word. A two month mediation on the topic has decided that two articles must exist, one for Epinephrine, which would cover the medical uses, and one for Adrenaline, which would cover the hormone. Since the UK is the only Anglophone nation to use Adrenaline to refer to the drug, and the the US and a few other countries (Canada, Australia, and Japan) use Epinephrine to refer to the drug with in the medical field, it was determined that this would be an adequate compromise. Further questions may be directed to my talk page. Ronk01 talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. We don't have better things to spend months arguing about? Looking at this as a pharmacology student in Australia I thought I'd check the talk page to see if there's any reason it's being called Epinephrine (North American name) as opposed to Adrenaline (rest of world) - at least according to my textbooks. No intention to re-spark this particular debate, but just thought it's worth noting that Australia at least calls the drugs adrenaline and noradrenaline so it's probably not worth citing us as an example of a country using the name Epinephrine. (in fact it's a name that seems to irritate health professionals here, just like apparently "adrenaline" irritates health professionals in the US if some comments on this page are to be believed). -Jasonb (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, primarily because person who started the page used Epinephrine (which is also the International Non-Proprietary Name) which means, according to WP:Spelling, that Epinephrine should be the name used. In regards to Adrenaline being a world term, please note that the WHO considers Epinephrine to be the appropriate name, and Japan, and a few European nations use it. Now about Australia, I have a few acquaintances who practice in Australia, and they seem to refer to it as Epinephrine. Perhaps a regional thing? The use of Adrenaline does annoy US and Canadian physicians quite a bit, as we consider it a layman's term, due to its "adrenaline junkie" connotations. In fact, the hospital accreditation committee here in the US (JCAHO) forbids the use of the term in any medical contexts. Ronk01 talk 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a regional thing, it's more like medical professionals in the US vs. medical professionals everywhere else and everyone else everywhere else. Adrenaline is the most widely used name in all countries, so WP:Spelling doesn't really apply (and Wikipedia doesn't use INN names as policy (and using certain names because they are advocated by external organizations on Wikipedia for its own sake is harmful)), plus it's not as important as the fact that adrenaline is supported by WP:Article titles. All that really isn't relevant now, as we are about to have articles with both names that cover different aspects of adrenaline. Adrenaline will treat it as a hormone, and Epinephrine will treat it as a drug. That is what we were able to agree on. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"All that really isn't relevant now, as we are about to have articles with both names that cover different aspects of adrenaline. Adrenaline will treat it as a hormone, and Epinephrine will treat it as a drug. That is what we were able to agree on" Exactly. Ronk01 talk 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The new Adrenaline article

I thought by now that Ronk01 would have posted a link to it here by now, but since that hasn't happened, and we haven't even began the article yet, the link to the new Adrenaline article agreed upon in the mediation is here. --WikiDonn (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for the delay in everything, but real life has kept me very busy. Ronk01 talk 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Agreed upon"? A local consensus of two or three editors is not going to justify a content fork. Adrenaline and epinephrine are the same thing. Fences&Windows 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's where the local consensus to split was reached among three editors. Well, I cry foul. Splitting a page because you can't agree on the name is very strange - shall we split petrol from gasoline too? No split without a proper consensus, please. No real attempt was made to discuss this more widely. Fences&Windows 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is precedent for this type of action in chemistry/pharmacology articles. Please take note of the split articles Nitroglycerin and Glyceryl trinitrate (pharmacology). The same compound, but split because one is used to refer to the drug more often, but the other is used to refer to the chemical more often. With regards to Local Consensus, there is precedent there too, many local discussions go on to affect the encyclopedia at large without further review. I would also remind you of WP: IAR, invoked here to avoid long, tedious arguments that draw attention for more productive work. Ronk01 talk 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief.

That "local consensus" was mediated by an admin and was achieved only after examining the history of both article and talkpage. The original question was do we call the article one or the other, as there is precedent for both, but in the end what was blindingly obvious (to anyone who looked) was that the real world treats adrenaline and epinephrine as different things, one natural and one an artificial replacement used in medicine.

Calling it only adrenaline offends many who point to the standardized medical name being epinephrine.

Calling it only epinephrine alienates half the planet since the name in common use is adrenaline.

The only sensible solution is to have a general article on adrenaline and a more specific article on epinephrine. You want to know about the drug and how many component parts it has, how it is administered etc., then go to epinephrine. You want to read about adrenaline junkies, the discovery of natural adrenaline, and the many uses of the term in society, then go to the adrenaline article.

The problem has been that no matter if you choose only epinephrine as a title, or only adrenaline, you will have continual renaming battles, because no matter how many doctors call it epinephrine the real world mostly uses adrenaline to mean non-synthetic epinephrine.

The more immediate problem is that, even despite all this, there will always be some fool who comes along after the fact and says

"What do you mean you got consensus?! You didn't ask me... and I object!"

but really we don't care, because we have gone about this in the right way. Feel free to complain at the appropriate venue after the article has been split won't you. Weakopedia (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

Referenced in many popular films, notably Crank_(film). Should this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.142.133 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

Now I have my own opinions on what this article should be called but it would appear that epinephrine has 'won', therefore can this article be cleaned up to make usage consistent? "Epinephrine acts by binding to a variety of adrenergic receptors. Adrenaline is a nonselective agonist of all adrenergic receptors, including α1, α2, β1, β2, and β3 receptors." 94.171.59.53 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, since a separate Adrenaline article (covering physiological function, not drug and chemical function) is in the works. Ronk01 talk 18:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has come and changed all the citations of "epinephrine" to "adrenaline". Perhaps we should put up some notification to avoid these frequent back and forth edits in the future. Ideas? --Tea with toast (話) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Image.

I think someone forgot to scale the lead image correctly. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalization

There's a section called Adrenaline Junkie which was either created or replaced - it's current contents are joking in nature. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.60.114 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this might explain things. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "Adrenaline Junkie" and "Adrenaline Addiction" should both be deleted unless they can cite peer reviewed research (rather than an article in Psychology Today). Woood (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone went on this page and used "adrenaline" when it should say "epinephrene"? -tlbail01

"adrenaline rush" endorphins, reference needed

In the section on "adrenaline junkie", the references provided (What Is An Adrenaline Junkie? What Can You Do If You Are One?by Elizabeth Scott, M.S. (updated: November 1, 2007), and Fight-or-flight reaction - Explanations - Brain-ChangingMinds.org) provide a good general introduction to the topic of "adrenaline junkies", but neither of them are clear on the endorphin issue. The first does not mention the word "endorphin" at all", and the second mentions it only once. Delving into the reference of the second article ([url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/33/2/356.full.pdf "THE EMERGENCY FUNCTION OF THE ADRENAL MEDULLA IN PAIN AND THE MAJOR EMOTIONS" BY W. B. CANNON]) reveals that the reference itself does not mention "endorphin" at all. So I have moved the citations up to the sentence preceding the endorphin sentence, and I have added a {{citation needed}} on the endorphin sentence. flaming () 05:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree to the comment and the proposed changes (why are the changes not present in the article page?), I have checked the two references and [24] doesn't support the last sentence about the endorphin secretion in case of fight-or-flight situation, while [25] is vague on the topic. After a brief internet research I cannot find any peer-reviewed sources supporting this claim, hence a {{citation needed}} is needed 129.132.153.25 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Last edit "epinephrine is synthetic adrenaline"

I have no ability to say whether this is correct, but it seems inconsistent with the Terminology and other sections? 122.106.177.130 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that edit was misleading, so I have reverted it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest

I've just reverted an edit about a recent large observational study of the immediate and one-month outcomes from the use of epinephrine in cardiac arrest patients prior to hospital arrival. The abstract is here. Though it's a large (>400,000 subjects) study it's afflicted by many limitations common to observational studies, and, as a primary source, is not recommended for health-related content, per WP:MEDRS. Once the findings have been replicated, or supported by better controlled evidence, and it's all contextualised in a systematic review or similar, we'll have a better understanding of its value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that it's more than a little hasty to remove that without discussing it here. Although you do have a point, the source is not so questionable to warrant it's immediate removable. I'd actually advise keeping it in the article, but writing it in in such a way that it is not stated as a hard fact, but a possibility (i.e "a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association suggests a correlation between a temporary spontaneous recovery and epinephrin administration in cardiac arrest patients."). There's also the fact that the mechanism of which epinephrin can assist cardiac arrest patients is well known and described earlier in this very article. In the "Medical Uses" section, there is a well-sourced paragraph detailing epinephrin's use in emergency treatment of cardiac arrest, and hence this study is not the first suggesting a connection. In fact, epinephrin is commonly used by hospitals along with defibrillators to correct arrhythmia (defibrillators are useless for complete heart cessation, but epinephrin may help). Due to all of this, it's not appropriate to make the decision yourself, as primary sources are acceptable, as long as they are not misused (used to claim something is a verified fact, vs a possibility). LiamSP (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology section

Resolved

I'm finding it hard to verify the unsourced assertion that the word epinephrine was chosen due to a clash with a trademark. this source says that epinepherine was chosen by the first isolators of the chemical, Abel and Crawford in 1897. That paper has some interesting things to say about the etymology of the words, and might be a good source for the terminology section. 137.43.188.74 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems weird too since Adrenalin is just a trademark for epinephrine, so how did a brand name come before the chemical name? C6541 (T↔C) 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems that there was a grain of truth in the trademark issue, I have updated the article with more information about this from a BMJ article I found. 137.43.188.169 (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is epinephrine neurotoxic to the nerves in some dental procedures?

About dental procedures as a cause of trigeminal neuralgias,in the book "Striking back: The trigeminal neuralgia and face pain handbook" it is written: "Dr Gremillion says that the local anesthetics that dentists use to numb an area before fixing a cavity can even act as a trigger. He says these are mild "neurotoxins" - agents that irritate nerves. Most of the short-acting anesthetics also contain epinephrine,he adds. Epinephrine is a vessel-constricting chemical that's used to prolong the numbing effect,but it also can trigger nerve pain."

I'm an atypical trigeminal neuralgia patient which began after a wisdom tooth extraction,the upper left wisdom tooth,in that procedure it was used epinephrine. Before that extraction,I had only rarely light pain near the tooth which was extracted one year later,the upper left wisdom tooth,and it was that extraction,that caused atypical trigeminal neuralgia. I have bad occlusion too and I had sometimes atypical odontalgia (I felt like it was a cavity but the cavity wasn't there) in the teeth near the upper left wisdom tooth. (79.17.249.117 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

releasing organ?

?Jackzhp (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Diagram and chemical name

The diagram as it stands definitely doesn't match the name given: β,3,4-trihydroxy-N-methylphenethylamine. The page at methylphenethylamine shows the hydroxys on the diagram as positions β, 4, and 5. Meanwhile, this page http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/searchId.do?chebiId=28918 shows a different diagram which lends credence to the β,3,4 interpretation. I think that this could easily be solved with a first year anatomy textbook that I don't have, but can anyone source a reliable description of the structure of Epinephrine?

PiAndWhippedCream (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The diagram currently in the article (File:Epinephrine_structure.svg) and the diagram at your www.ebi.ac.uk link are actually equivalent because the phenyl ring is free to rotate about an axis through its point of attachment to the rest of the molecule. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking to IUPHAR

We already do so in the infobox as 479. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Vasodilator or Vasoconstrictor ?

This article is confusing as to whether Epinephrine is a Vasodilator or a Vasoconstrictor. From other sources I gather that is can be either. In low doses it is a Vasodilator, and at high doses it is a Vasoconstrictor.

This page says its a Vasoconstrictor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasoconstriction

and these pages say it is a Vasodilator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasodilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system

EricStruble (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether epinephrine causes vasoconstriction or vasodilation depends on the blood vessel used. If the smooth muscle cells mainly express α-adrenoceptors then they cause contraction; if they express mostly the β-adrenoceptors, then epinephrine will cause dilation. Klbrain (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Superhuman" powers

Epinephrine is apparently responsible for the instances of temporary "superhuman" powers - people lifting cars off trapped family members and so on. What you could call the Incredible Hulk effect. Shouldn't there be a discussion of this - it is not after all merely science fiction.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a separate article specifically discussing 'superhuman' strength under Hysterical strength#Research.Klbrain (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hysterical Strength

Firstly, even though I've just put it in, I confess that:

• I don't like the term "Hysterical Strength" ... but it is out there
• I don't think that adrenaline is the main cause, but others do and I can't find good evidence to disprove it (without resorting to personal research ...)

However, I think it's worth a mention, under a "Popular Culture" heading, which is hopefully enough of a headline for people to understand its level of scientific support. So, I've added a link to a book and a positive book review in Scientific American; not peer-review, but with a reasonable readership. Thanks to User:Jytdog for pulling me up on this section, particularly the referencing. Feel free to let me know (both barrels are fine)! Klbrain (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Doc James for the recent edit in that section; a much better idea.Klbrain (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Isomers

In archive 2 there was a hint that natural adrenaline and epinephrine the drug may have different chiral isomers - I dont see any mention of that now (Info box says (R)). - Rod57 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Adrenaline-hormone or epinephrine-drug - Split ?

There is lots of talk in archives 1, 2 and 3 about which name to use and it seems to have been named adrenaline for some time. It seems that the US/INN drug name E currently wins over the common name (despite strong arguments for A). Aside from the name: This page now seems very oriented to epinephrine as a medication/drug (the first 7 sections). Could we factor out some (eg biosynthesis and history) to make a page on adrenaline the mammalian hormone (both pages can refer to each other)? Is there a precedent from other hormones that went on to become approved drugs ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) didn't change to the INN prasterone (even though that article is also slanted to the intervention rather than the hormone. - Rod57 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest no change in name (even though I always use 'adrenaline' myself), as there is no sufficiently strong reason to change (given that both names are in common use and Epinephrine is an INN). I agree that the current article is weighted to heavily to the use as a drug, but think that we can expand sections on this page that relate to its function as a hormone. So, I'm a lumper rather a splitter!Klbrain (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Adrenaline/epinephrine is like acetaminophen/paracetamol. Two words for the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter?

There have been a couple of couple of editorial reversals here regarding whether or not epinephrine should be listed as a "neurotransmitter" in the lead section, if at all in the article. My understanding is that it is only very rarely a neurotransmitter, and that in places in the periphery where the adrenaline has been thought of as a neurotransmitter it is of course norepinephrine. The key issue in the periphery is that sympathetic nerve terminals don't usually contain PNMT and hence can't make adrenaline, whereas the adrenal medulla does. Therefore, such terminals can only use adrenaline very indirectly, by taking it up from the circulation. This uptake is limited because the norepinephrine transporter doesn't have a high affinity for adrenaline. So, can anyone find a reliable review showing that adrenaline is commonly an important neurotrasmitter? Being present in some central neuron isn't strong enough evidence in my opinion. My feeling is that this role isn't functionally very important, and hence should be kept out of the lead section.Klbrain (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. The refs I am seeing on this are old http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6278965] and this says it plays a limited role [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the ref, interpretation (that it is minor) and your edit.Klbrain (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Adrenaline Junkie section deleted? Now it makes no sense.

The "Sensation Seeking" page links here to a section called "adrenaline junkie" that appears to not exist or have been deleted. If you search wikipedia for "adrenaline junkie" it also links to the page, and there is actually no mention of the concept of "adrenaline junkies" or being addicted to adrenaline at all. The page on Extreme Sports makes an offhand mention that the medical community generally believes that thrillseekers like the dopamine/serotonin from the increased physical activity, but not the adrenaline, however anyone who has ever sat in a roller coaster or gone down a slide knows that you get a pleasurable rush without having to exert yourself at all. Wikipedia actually now has a dead link here, since this page contains no information about this phenomenon that I can find, and no acknowledgement that it exists, including no claim or explanation of why it might be false. Please undelete or return the proper section that was clearly here before. 24.190.214.204 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking the edit history, I see that that section was edited out on 01:41, 12 February 2015, by Seppi333 using the arguments "ridiculous WP:OR". However, I don't think that it was own research, and regardless of how ridiculous it might be, it is a phrase used fairly widely, as the incoming links and the links in the deleted section show. A web search also shows the term widely used. So, I agree with 24.190.214.204, arguing more specifically that it could work under the "Society and Culture" heading and be improved with better referencing. So, I think its work reinstating and improving.Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a section with this title back, but the contents are quite different now, in particularly linking to the closely-related psychological concept of novelty seeking.Klbrain (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are exactly 2 sentences in that section cited by WP:MEDRS quality reviews. The remaining statements in that paragraph need to have their citations improved if that material is going to be retained since they are medical statements; otherwise, it needs to be deleted again. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that "Adrenaline Junkie" is in the "Society and Culture" section, and the topic relates to use of the phrase in popular culture, I think that therefore WP:RS is a more appropriate standard.Klbrain (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't a policy with an application that is dependent on the section or even the article topic; it depends on the statement. Every one of the following sentences makes a medical claim and none of them are cited by a medical review: The terms related to the correlation between psychological stress and adrenaline release,[99][100] secondary to activation of the sympathetic nervous system, although such stress is also trigger many other responses within the central nervous system reward system that drives behavioral responses. Through this system, it is believed that signalling with the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain is likely to be more important.[101] Nevertheless, adrenaline infusion alone does increase alertness.[102] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've killed some of the 'comtemporary culture' references and added in citations of the relevant sections from an Autonomic Physiology textbook (by W. Jänig), and a scientific review.Klbrain (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparent error in the "Epinephrine" article

The chemical diagram for this compound appears to have an extra item showing on it:

At the right end of the diagram, the compound ends with an NH group. Clearly, the nitrogen has three bonds: one to the rest of the compound (to the left), one to the hydrogen above it, and the third hydrogen below.

But there appears to be another (heavy) line extending beyond the nitrogen toward the lower right, though it has nowhere to go, nothing to connect to, and no apparent purpose.

I therefore suggest that this additional line be deleted from the diagram so that the right end simply ends with a nitrogen and the two hydrogens.

I'm posting this here so that someone with more expertise than me on this sort of thing can review the situation and determine whether a fix is indeed needed.

Thank you. 152.216.11.5 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

At the end of that line is a carbon with three hydrogens (a methyl group), as you can see in model just below it. A line with nothing at the end is the standard way to show a methyl group. With regard to the nitrogen atom, I don't know what you mean about "the hydrogen below"; the third bond is to the methyl group. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)