Talk:Dinitrophenol

original seed info from ref desk

Does anyone know the name of an early unsuccessful pill that tries to interfere with the proton-motive force inside mitocondria? 206.172.66.150 18:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It rings of a bell, but I can't remember at the moment; what it probably does is try to make "holes" in the walls between the matrix and intermembrane space of the mitochrondria, that way, energy production from glucose is less efficient, ie. instead of 36-38 ATP per glucose molecule, it is 20+ or even less or something. Hence, you burn more food/glucose (and fat which is converted to glucose) for the same amount of activity. This is dangerous of course, because if it ends up being that it takes more energy to metabolize food than it produces, then you have an energy loss just by thinking or breathing, rather than merely slowing down energy production. I've come across the article before. This should lead someone else in the right direction. -- Natalinasmpf 21:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it based on dinitrophenol (DNP)? The following web page was the top of the quick google search i did. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds just about right. -- Natalinasmpf 21:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

make "holes" in the walls between the matrix and intermembrane space of the mitochrondria -- Yep!!!!!!!!!!!! that sounds exactly like the material I should be addressing on my "Oxford Tutorial", in fact, the first part of that presentation talks about how the proton-motive force was setup in the first place. And I know that it's the inner mitochondrial membrane that prevents the protons from diffusing back into mitochondria, instead they have to go through specialized proteins embedded into the mitochondrial membranes called "ATP synthases" that makes ATP from the energy gained from protons going back to mitochondria. So if DNP makes "holes" in the walls of mitochondria membrane than it allows protons to diffuse back into the mitochondria, defeating the purpose of the original membrane scheme. (I'm the original question asker, I came back to school so my IP is different). Thanks a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooot 129.97.252.63 18:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To feel comforted about your success, does this project documenting the process of phosphorylation discuss and how it was set up deal with endosymbiotic theory and how the eukaryote evolved, or are you dealing with something else? -- Natalinasmpf 23:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Natalinasmpf: actually the topic is really simple -- "Describe how the proton-motive force is set up and how interfering with the proton-motive force was the focus of an early unsuccessful diet pill.", and we're required to do a short presentation on it. No fancy topics like the endosymbiotic theory or how eukaryotes evolved -- too much for a 5-minute presentation! ;-) 129.97.252.63 05:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to rephrase that question, I'm not quite sure how you are trying to connect endosymbiosis to the original question? More relevant would be to consider the function of the mitochondria in brown fat with regard to babies and thermoregulation. Or to consider how plants generate heat to give off volatile chemicals, such as the arum species (the ones that smell like rotten meat), to attract flies. David D. (Talk) 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dinitrophenol is an "uncoupler". It dates back to the 1960s as a tool for investigating mitochondrial electron transfer in vitro and in cell cultures, but it was never marketed or even entered in clinical trials as a diet pill because of obvious toxicity potential. alteripse 21:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I stand corrected. References are always better than top o' the head. Thanks for the additional info. alteripse 22:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DNP was definitely used as a diet pill. I was just not sure if it was still on the market. Some more research shows that it was banned by the FDA in 1938. Quotes from the following paper [http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijapa/vol1n2/obesity2.xml Obesity Part 2:Pharmacotherapy] by David E Oeser, Pharm.D. are as follows:

"Dinitrophenol (2,4-DNP) was introduced in 1933 for the treatment of obesity and soon found its way into numerous “anti-fat” patent medicines (Tainter et al. 1933). Dintrophenols induce weight loss by uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation, thereby markedly increasing the metabolic rate and body temperature. However, the use of these compounds was abandoned in 1937 because of reports of severe intoxications and deaths. Dinitrophenol is used currently as a wood preservative and insecticide. Tainter ML, Stockton AB, Cutting WC. Use of dinitrophenol in obesity and related conditions JAMA 1933;101:1472-5. "

However, despite the known dangers, it appears the drug is still available. Two health pages caught my attention that said that "It is currently being marketed and used by body builders, and is also advertised and marketed on the Internet. The extent of DNP use is unknown at this time." [1] [2] David D. (Talk) 22:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Went to a body building forum and sure enough they are taking DNP [3]. Could body builders become extinct in the near future? David D. (Talk) 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's dangers are grossly exagerated. As long as doeses are not excessive, it's extremely effecitve at increasing metabolism with few or no side effects. In studies by Cutting and Tainter in the 1930's, people were given 3-5mg/kg per day (a moderate dose for bodybuilders today) for *several* months. As they said, "The metabolism has been maintained at a rate 50 percent above normal for months, with no deleterious symptoms, such as the hyperirritability caused by equivalent doses of thyroid gland." Temperature (the most dangerous side effect) does NOT rise until the dose gets high enough (and unreasonable enough) that the body can no longer radiate the increase in heat production. It's the morons who take triple or quadruple the proper daily dose who get themselves into trouble, and even that's rare. Look at the literature, for example the extensive toxilogical profile from the ATSDR, and you'll see that there are very few case studies from DNP overdose. It's quite rare, and when people do die, they nearly always take over 1g at once, which is just ridiculous. Sure people died in the 1930's. Over a million doeses were prescribed. Some people who toyed with "more is better," against directions, paid the price. But look at how many people die from aspirin each year. There are side effects with any drug. Are they excessive with a REASONABLE doses of DNP, no. -Conciliator

DYK

If we spruce this up a bit, we could submit this for Did you know?, could we not?

sure, but give me a few days to finish the article (or feel free to pitch in). I am just abstracting material from the excellent links above. alteripse 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to think of something very substantial quickly. We just have to hurry, because there's a 72 hour time limit.

Why is there a time limit? Why isn't it better to wait until it is sort of "complete" before we call attention to it? alteripse 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]