Talk:Etonitazene

	This article 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Etonitazene.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitazene / Nitazine

This article says a related chemical which is yet to have its own article is called 'Nitazene' however the opioid template says that it is called 'Nitazine'. This may cause confusion when the chemical article is created. Nagelfar (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etonitazene 2011 synthesis.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Etonitazene 2011 synthesis.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest?

US Patent 2,944,062 describes a derivative with an added amide moiety: CCOC1=CC=C(C=C1)C(C(N)=O)C2=NC3=C(C=CC(N(=O)=O)=C3)N2CCN(CC)CC

My German is very poor but as I understand it, etonitazine which they previously tested was 60x M (by the same team) while examples XIX (above) is x200. The original huge figures are typical of initial patents and such.

212. Benzimidazol-Derivate und verwandte Heterocyclen VI l) Synthese von Phenyl-[l-aminoalkyl-benzimidazolyl-(2)]-essigsaureestern und -amiden von A. Hunger, J. Kebrle, A. Rossi und K. Hoffmann (19. VIII. 60)

I am afraid I don't know how to change the images but I believe that this racemic derivative is over 3x the parent compound. The amide may be a bioisostere of the beta hydroxy seen in potent fentanyl derivatived, It overlays the ORL1 full-agonist MCOPPB so maybe, much like combined mu & delta agonism seems to vastly increase analgesic potency (see 14-methoxy metopon), dual mu & ORL1 ligands may be more potent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a patent which produces analogues x4 more potent. I'm no good a graphics, but if someone could take these into account. Most excitingly, I suspect that their increased nociception is due to it's ORL1 affinity (unknown in 1960). SMILES C1=C(N(=O)=O)C=CC2N(CCN(CC)CC)C([C@H](C(N)=O)C3=CC=C(OCC)C=C3)=NC1=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 References deal with the (R) amide moiety on the methylene (-CH2-) spacer. The German studies list etonitazene as being 60x morphine, also given for human potency and the amide as having a potency of x200 morphine. While the patent doesn't deal with the chiral compound but the paper specifies the (R) isomer. This is important for the understanding of the QSAR.
The initial potency was tested using the Straub tail test. This test is famously unreliable and the German studies used tail-withdrawal tests on a much bigger cohort of tests. While the NOP activity is a hypothesis, it does offer the possibility of developing new analgesics with a much larger ratio between analgesic and euphoric doses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read german but i can read tables and despite these multiple edits and talk on this article over multiple years i think this "4x stroger / 200x morphine in humans" amide derivative is incorrect and a misunderstanding (also incorrectly written on the article as carboxide, should be carboxamide). The papers are all released as a series by the same authors in the same year.

10.1002/hlca.19600430412 Lists compound XXXVIII (Etonitazene) as 1000x morphine potency

10.1002/hlca.19600430634 Lists compound XIX (Carboxamide derivative) as 200x morphine potency

Testing methods are listed below the tables and has the same reference. Unless it mentions somewhere those are human numbers why would we assume that one suddenly changes testing methods from rats to humans? Should that whole paragraph be removed as it may be based on a wrong understanding and speculation? LeviathanBaphomet (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Etonitazene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140307083247/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/987708/Chemist-charged-in-drug-case.html?pg=all to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/987708/Chemist-charged-in-drug-case.html?pg=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

I believe Thomas K Highsmith commited suicide and a batch made in Moscow killed a number of people. I cannot remember where I read it, but I think it's important to make people understand just how dangerous the stuff is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal models

"It is, however, useful in animal models for addiction studies" - what does "animal models" mean? Are these some kind of artificial devices or a euphemism for vivisection? Perhaps we should call things by their real names - animals or animals in labs? Trendorder (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in synthetic scheme

The scheme for the 2011 synthesis is wrong. One methylene group too many between the phenyl ring and the imidazole group. 219.74.165.120 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]