Pharmacology
This page 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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 6/2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 – 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive: 1/2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

This article got a huge amount of text added by an IP and I am not sure whether this is appropriate (it's about the pharmacological properties of this plant). It seems well sourced, but perhaps someone from this project could also have a look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Let's just say that this plant needed some pruning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, clever Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can somebody help fix the talk page of Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol? It has a backlink leading to the talk page of Ipratropium_bromide, because the software thinks it's a subpage of the latter. Thanks! Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no solution for that, to the best of my knowledge. Unless we can find a character in the charset that looks like a forward slash but isn't parsed by the wiki as a subpage. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility would be to move Ipratropium bromide/salbutamol to Ipratropium bromide–salbutamol. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just checked AC/DC and it also has the same problem. How about Ipratropium bromide+salbutamol? Or moving it to a page without the slash and using {{displaytitle}}, would that work? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean changing most of the page titles in Category:Combination drugs and its subcategories, plus the links in the relevant navboxes (and modifying WP:PHARMMOS, of course). Is that worth the trouble? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, about the existing consensus for naming at PHARMMOS. Unlike the rock band, it's not clear to me that the source material, as opposed to Wikipedia, follows a convention of using the slash. To me, the slash sort of implies "or", when this is obviously a matter of "and". Personally, I prefer the n-dash over either the plus sign or the slash, but I agree that it's not very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recognised name of these combination drugs is with a forward slash. I don't actually care what the talkpage looks like, as long as readers can find what they want. I think we need resounding consensus on this WikiProject before officially moving all pages to a title without a slash, using {{displaytitle}} and leaving behind redirects to use from the search bar.

It is just not important enough, I'm affraid. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, and I agree that it's no big deal. However, it's not really the "recognized name" outside of this WikiProject, insofar as I can tell. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what about "amoxicillin/clavulinic acid" and "piperacillin/tazobactam"? JFW | T@lk 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:NBOH-2C-CN where several articles are requested to be renamed using a different nomenclature -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the page for Ondansetron and I'm inclined to delete the "Brand names" section, but I don't want to just commandeer the article.

First, there's a somewhat random and not at all comprehensive list of manufacturers of the drug around the world. Since fluoxetine is a pretty commonly used drug, I assume that article must be pretty solid and well-maintained, so I thought I'd just do what they did and include all the available manufacturers/brands like they did here. However, as it turns out, a similar list for ondansetron would just be massive. The fluoxetine list can't be comprehensive, then, if the list for the much less widely-used ondansetron would rival fluoxetine's. Is it really useful for an encyclopedia to have this info, then--especially if it's not comprehensive or at least not current? Here are the brands & manufacturers of ondansetron around the world:

http://www.drugs.com/international/ondansetron.html

It's insanity. Do we really need to reproduce this info in the articles? Especially since it's difficult to keep current and is easily accessible on the web. For the sake of consistency, can we just put external links to these lists at drugs.com at the bottoms of our pages?

The rest of the section is just a blurb about Baxter's approval status for manufacturing ondansetron:

It seems pretty random to have info on one pharmaceutical company's FDA approval process. It's more like a news item that would have been relevant in 2006. Update: I've deleted this from the article.

So, I just want to delete the entire section. Nimptsch3 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why having such a section is necessarily bad; on the contrary, some people might be interested in reading a drug article to learn about available brands. However, in the interest of time for the editor (and the reader), it would probably be more useful to constrain the list to medications that are currently available in different regions. If that list is too big, another constraint like the "top X brands by (some measurement factor, e.g. sales)" brands per region might make for a more feasible list size. If there's no clear way to filter a list, linking out might be best. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those suggestions would make the list size more reasonable. Still, I'm not sure if that kind of data (e.g., top sellers) is available, or if it's wortwhile to do that kind of work and constant maintenance. Top sellers are probably in constant flux to some degree, and what's the point of an outdated encyclopedia?Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As to your second question, if it's about the approval process for the prototype brand (first time the drug goes through the process), then it's probably worth keeping it - possibly in the history section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took out the bit about Baxter. It wasn't even about the prototype brand--it was just one of the [now many] available generics

I have no concerns with a brand name section at the end of the article. Only the first one or two should be mention in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No concerns in the sense of, you think it's a good section, or as in, those sections don't interest you? I'm inclined to just have mention of the one or two brands in the lead IMO.Nimptsch3 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with people creating exhaustive lists of brand names and placing it at the end of the article. When there they should not be capitalized though. The first one or two brand names should be mentioned in the lead but not any more. English Wikipedia is used by many people in primarily non English speaking countries. We are a global encyclopedia and therefore I think we should have this global information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything above except the capitalization of brand names. Brand names are proper nouns hence following standard English grammar conventions, brand name should be capitalized. Also the convention used within the pharmaceutical industry is lower case for non-proprietary names and capitalized for proprietary brand names. Finally the difference in capitalization provides a quick visual clue to help distinguish between non-proprietary and brand names. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mis typed. I meant should not be bolded. They should definitely be capitalized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we seem to have a consensus for including brand names. Thank you for the feedback, everyone! Nimptsch3 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this drug notable? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on all manner of substances that are not (yet) in clinical use. There are secondary sources that support its potential use but I can't find any trials (even phase 1/2). The content could be merged into Platinum-based antineoplastic. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Imatinib, Axitinib, Nilotinib, Doxepin. In my opinion, such lists are practically unusable. They also are against WP:PHARMMOS ("Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list.") What do others think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pruned Imatinib since it had way too many extremely low incidence symptoms listed. Still could use a little work cutting down the size of uncommon. Otherwise, I don't think the approach is necessarily bad; it just needs to be limited to what's useful to the reader. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many of these side effects are very low incidence. Need to focus on the common ones and delete the rest. Boghog (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these pages that I edited were poorly referenced and written, for that matter, prior to when I edited them. The reason why I edited them the way I did was because I don't know about you's but I find it easier to find side effects in lists than in prose. The other reason is that to write about every single side effect in prose would take forever. If you want to change the adverse effects sections without reducing them to the couple of sentences they were before I edited these pages feel free. The WP:PHARMMOS mostly referred to the layout of the articles. Fuse809 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, btw, have a peakaboo at this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazopanib) where I've left a little adverse effect summary section. Fuse809 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to state that I'm not going to do anything about these (meanwhile dozens of) articles because if I would I'd just be rude and delete most of the side effects. These lists seem to contain any side effect down to and below 0.1% frequency. Not to mention the standard "Contraindicated in patients with hypersensitivity to the substance X or any of its excipients" which is not only a lawyers' claim without a scientific basis, it is also simply wrong when we are writing about, say, paricalcitol as opposed to Zemplar. Please think before copypasting. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we move these lists to a page call "List of side effects of X". Per the MOS large lists should not be within articles. We can than put a "see also" tag at the top of the section. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these changes to trazodone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Maybe we should use a columns layout, but that's a minor question. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also support. Boghog (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of IP-based editors is adding the same bunch of primary research studies as references, despite attempts to engage. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks peaceful now, but have watched that page and will chime in, RL permitting. -- Scray (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I made this a parameter L-Phenylalanine L-Tyrosine L-DOPA Epinephrine Phenethylamine p-Tyramine Dopamine Norepinephrine N-Methylphenethylamine N-Methyltyramine p-Octopamine Synephrine 3-Methoxytyramine AADC AADC AADC primary pathway PNMT PNMT PNMT PNMT AAAH AAAH brain CYP2D6 minor pathway COMT DBH DBH Insert witty caption here

Just putting this notice here due to this being too much work for just myself.

I made a new wikilink-annotated metabolic pathway transclusion template {{phenylalanine biosynthesis}} which is applicable to a lot of articles, including several (groups) not in the template itself (e.g., trace amine, catecholamine, tyrosine hydroxylase, phenylalanine hydroxylase). It's too much work for me to customize a caption for all relevant articles that this template could be used on, so I'm just putting it here in the event anyone has any editing interest in a relevant article and cares to add it.
For technical reference, the cofactor information on all enzymes except COMT is in Dopamine#Biochemical mechanisms, the citations for the image pathways are in the commons page description, and the compounds that are off the typical "catecholamine pathway" are phenethylaminergic trace amines (TAAR1 agonists).

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks amazing. Clever tricks - using a bitmap for the pathway and annotations for the text/links. How much time did that take you? JFW | T@lk 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I spent about 2-3 hours creating and double-checking/verifying the pathway info the image and about another 2 hours making the annotation template. Making {{Annotated image 4}} took me somewhere between like 12-20 hours though - I did lots of intermittent work on it.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:That includes the time I spent making the documentation.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the term complex in article Gintonin but could find no obvious place to point it. Complex is a disambiguation page which lists several specific types of complex, none of which seem to fit the bill, but there is no single article that explains in more general terms what a complex is in a chemical sense. From a layman's perspective I think that this term, or probably Complex (chemistry) needs an article of its own. I made this suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Complex and it was suggested that I include pharmacology experts too. --Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article SkinPro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the sources seem to be press releases or otherwise from this cosmeceutical company itself. There is nothing that indicates that the company is notable. I couldn't find anything independent or reliable in web searches either. See WP:CORP

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent addition to peptide that I and another editor reverted. However conversation with the original editor made be me read this popular press article that made me think there may be some notability to this product.

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2288955/Anti-wrinkle-creams-really-work--magic-ingredient.html

Should we instead write about Matrixyl in its own article, or as a part of skin care or cosmeceutical?

Conversation at Talk:Peptide#Beauty_products.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not a wiki or psychopharm expert, but when reading the wikipedia page on Paroxetine, I spotted a few red flags compared to other references. Looking further I believe false statements have made their way into the page with dishonest footnote attribution. I don't know what the right response is so I'm bringing it to your attention. Again, I am not an expert so please check that I'm interpreting these papers correctly!

The second paragraph of the article on Paxil includes the following statement:

"In both adults and children the efficacy of paroxetine for depression is comparable to that of placebo."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211353

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-TAB08-Hammads-Review.pdf (p30)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001%2Farchpsyc.63.3.332

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

This is a very strong claim and followed by 4 footnotes to make it look like it is well supported. But the footnotes certainly do not support this claim. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 footnotes are side-effect studies that do not measure efficacy at all, but rather suicidal behavior. Their inclusion as footnotes is dishonest, since the casual reader will assume all 4 studies back up the quote.

1. The first footnote is a meta-study that actually shows the the drug is more effective than placebo (see the efficacy graph, all but one of the tests have paxil beating placebo) but the researchers' opinion in the conclusion suggests the major side effects may outweigh the minor benefits. It's certainly worthwhile to include this conclusion and the study is legitimate, but it's been misinterpreted - the results actually prove the opposite, the opinion in the conclusion has been mislabeled as a proven result.
2. The second study only concerns side effects and not efficacy.
3. The 3rd and 4th studies only cover side effects in pediatric patients and have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the medication, and nothing to do with adult testing.
4. "

I conclude that these four references certainly do not support such an extreme claim sitting at the head of the article.

When I looked at Talk:Paroxetine, it is extremely contentious with editors accusing each other of being "shills" or promoting "spin". FWIW, there is a large anti-paxil community online which may explain why this talk page is so opinionated. This is a science article and if someone has a contrary opinion they need to accurately cite a peer-reviewed article.

Check my reading of those footnotes, it seems to me that this page needs to be locked and reviewed by an expert, the quote has been there for a while. Thank you!

50.46.158.65 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref is a systematic review of both published and unpublished literature ( a key in this topic area as half of the studies go unpublished and it is typically all the negative studies which full into this group ).

This 2008 review states "Among adults with moderate to severe major depression in the clinical trials we reviewed, paroxetine was not superior to placebo in terms of overall treatment effectiveness and acceptability. These results were not biased by selective inclusion of published studies." [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! You have quoted from the result text of the abstract. I would encourage you to look at the result text of the paper's conclusion -- the abstract conclusion oddly conflates leaving the test early with failure. Here is the full conclusion:

In this systematic review of published and unpublished studies comparing paroxetine with placebo in adults with major depression, we found that the drug was not superior to placebo in terms of the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment for any reason. However, when we examined the results using specific measures of depression, we found that paroxetine was significantly superior to placebo.

The key point is that their Primary Outcome is leaving the trial early. That is the first sentence of the conclusion. Those results are in Figure 2. You can see that they are indistinguishable from placebo. The Secondary Outcome is actual change in depression scores on two psychological tests. Those results are in Figures 3 and 4 and, as noted, significantly favor paroxetine.

In the interpretation following, they note that the side effects may outweigh the benefits. But the paper does not show that the efficacy on psychological tests is equivalent between placebo and paroxetine, it shows the opposite. While the assertion that "all antidepressants are no more effective than placebo" as popularized by Irving Kirsch got a lot of mass media attention, it is not the dominant opinion of psychiatry at this point:

American Psychiatric Association President-elect Nada Stotland, MD, maintained that studies like those reviewed by Kirsch and colleagues, which compare a single drug to placebo, do not accurately reflect the way doctors prescribe antidepressants. "We know that many people who are depressed do not respond to the first antidepressant they try," she says. "It can take up to an average of three different antidepressants until we find the one that works for a particular individual. Therefore, testing any single antidepressant on a group of depressed individuals will show that many of them do not improve."

50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "no evidence in children" we have "Ten publications, comprising a total of 2,046 patients, evaluated the efficacy of four SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline and citalopram) in child and adolescent depression. It is noted that an additional 6 trials (with a total of 1,234 patients) were not reported by the industry because of a lack of efficacy or problematic side effects, including suicidal behaviors. Meta-analyses revealed no data supporting the use of SSRIs, except for fluoxetine." [2] Have looked at a lot of the available review articles for children and all of them are hesitant like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This new paper looks better. The FDA currently does not recommend the use of paroxetine in adolescents. Thank you! 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in adults whether or not SSRIs are effective in mild to severe depression is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overall efficacy also needs to take into account adverse effects thus "For continuous measures, the effect of paroxetine was small. However, it could be argued that concluding that paroxetine is not effective on the basis of a small mean difference may be erroneous, given that a small difference may have an important impact on a substantial number of patients.26 For dichotomous measures, we found that, for every 100 adults with depression who received treatment with paroxetine, 53 experienced a favourable response; of these, however, 42 would have had a favourable response to placebo, such that the response was attributable to paroxetine in only 11 cases. This means that physicians would need to expose 100 patients to paroxetine to provide benefit to 11. This modest effect was offset by tolerability problems, as indicated by patients who left studies because of adverse effects and by patients who reported adverse effects (even though they remained in the study)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have clarified with "In adults while there is a small improvement in depression symptoms this appears to be balanced by an increase in adverse effects" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good and correctly reflect the paper, thank you. 50.46.158.65 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Many of the pharmacology articles on Wikipedia get very little attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have nominated for FAR. It is mostly supported by primary sources. This concern was brought up by Anthony months ago and has not been addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered if we really need an article for every pharmaceutical brand name... What is general consensus? SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Redirected back to trazodone. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SelfishSeahorse Thanks for picking this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen an article this bad for a long time. It is a mess of primary research whose use is attempting to promote medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have a drug box rather than a chem box IMO. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents worth is that yeah, a drugbox is appropriate. Frankly I think a drugbox should be used for any compound that is either used in medicine or as a recreational drug. Fuse809 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted it to a drugbox and updated the revid here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Index. That said, it needs these fields filled out (I added licence_US):

<!--Clinical data-->
| tradename = 
| Drugs.com = 
| pregnancy_US = 
| legal_AU = 
| legal_CA = 
| legal_UK = 
| legal_US = 
| licence_US = Norepinephrine
| legal_status = 
| dependency_liability = 
| routes_of_administration= 

<!--Pharmacokinetic data-->
| bioavailability =
| protein_bound =
| metabolism =
| elimination_half-life = 
| excretion = 

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first real attempt at an svg diagram (AADC is annotated/wikilinked). Anyone have any feedback or suggestions? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nicely improved improved diagram. I like the improved annotations. I would make directed paths a bit thicker, as they tend to disappear when the image is shrunk to thumbnail size. "Efflux" is the proper technical term, but "release" may be easier to understand for the general reader. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I updated the wording and made the paths 60% thicker. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

New SVG file for amphetamine Pharmacodynamics of amphetamine enantiomers in a dopamine neuron via AADC Amphetamine enters the presynaptic neuron across the neuronal membrane or through DAT. Once inside, it binds to TAAR1 or enters synaptic vesicles through VMAT2. When amphetamine binds to TAAR1, it reduces dopamine receptor firing rate and triggers protein kinase A (PKA) and protein kinase C (PKC) signaling, resulting in DAT phosphorylation. Phosphorylated DAT then either operates in reverse or withdraws into the presynaptic neuron and ceases transport. When amphetamine enters the synaptic vesicles through VMAT2, dopamine is released into the cytosol (yellow area). Image file being replaced by the one above

Is it worth nominating this image for WP:FP? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NM - I ended up nominating it anyway. Wish me luck. :) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TAAR1-Dopamine neuron Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS do not align; a discussion is here regarding aligning them (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ordering). --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes in WP:Pharmacology
In the most popular articles (source) In project articles (+ talkpages) In all pages (+ talkpages) In articles with {{Infobox drug}} (+ talkpages)
List overview · Updated: 2016-12-03 · This box:

Please see the box on the right, and risk a click. You can put the box on a page by adding

{{Pharmacology recent changes}}

See the template's page for documentation. Talks at the Template talkpage please, the development continues. Suggested for PHARM by Anthonyhcole. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning explained at the nomination page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones#Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones Formerly 98 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]