Talk:Norepinephrine

Quick comment

I noticed ref 1 doesn't have the info it's being used to cite (unless it's in one of the links?). Could a more precise ref be added? Also, isn't the "upon the kidneys" translation for adrenaline and epinepherine (i.e. epi- = upon, neph- = kidney)? What does the nor- add? delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add ref 1; I'll look for a better source. The rationale for "nor" is explained in the Structure section -- I don't think it is interesting enough to belong in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Seppi333 has fixed this by adding another ref, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, I still don't see it, I just see a page of links with no mention of norepinephrine. Can someone link to the specific page with this info? Or provide a quote? delldot ∇. 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the 2nd instance to it. It's still citing the sentences about the terms norepi/noradr in latin/greek. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which instance you were referring to. I've supplied a different ref for the etymological information, in which it can more easily be found in the article (the History section). Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it ok that this is defining adrenalin, not noradrenaline? Seems odd that that's in the lead with the etymology of the wrong substance. Are you sure the 'nor' is not worth mentioning in the lead? I'm not trying to be a plague here, if you're both confident I can drop the matter. delldot ∇. 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There's an entry for Nor- if someone wants to incorporate it. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Many apologies

I have had many family issues and I profusely apologize in the delay of this review. I will jump in again. I'll be finishing the review up with my other account. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) otherwise known as Bfpage

I've been mostly out of action for the last couple of weeks, so I'm actually happy that not much has happened here during that time. I do look forward to getting this in motion, though. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I do feel badly because the other reviews that I have done have been completed in a week or less. I'm back to work. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

splitting biosyntheses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosineMinimobiler (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is your opinion. The article was also passed as a good article - you need to propose the change in material not just go ahead and mention this afterwards.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: the talk page post was made before the edit, check time. now, the articles are bloated. call others of wiki project medicine.Minimobiler (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Minimobiler: regardless - the entry on the talk page needs to be a proposal left for comments from others.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: bring the others.Minimobiler (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the biosynthesis section you mention is only a small part of this article - about 4-5 paragraphs. It seems needless to split each paragraph to a new page. An interested reader can click on the wikilinks to view each page (eg dopamine, tyrosine) to view more information about how they are synthesised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the biosynthesis of an arbitrary neurotransmitter from an associated basic dietary constituent (e.g., amino acids) is a fairly important subtopic that should be covered in any neurotransmitter article. Norepinephrine is derived from dopamine which can be derived from other dietary components or obtained in the diet; however, dopamine can't cross the blood-brain barrier, so dietary dopamine can't function as a neurotransmitter or be metabolized into norepinephrine in the CNS; consequently, almost all of the norepinephrine that is produced in the brain is derived from dietary constituents that are metabolized into dopamine and then norepinephrine.
  FWIW, norepinephrine can also be synthesized in humans from para-octopamine by CYP2D6 (PMID 24374199), but that's not a significant biosynthetic pathway. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• I don't have much of an opinion about whether the section should be shortened. I would however prefer for it to be located further down in the page -- it is probably too complex for most readers and is likely to make some stop reading when they encounter it. Looie496 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is useful to see how the biosynthesis of norepinephrine relates to the biosynthesis of other neurotransmitters in the same biosynthetic pathway. At the same time, I think the size of the figure could be considerably reduced without loss of readability. Boghog (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If someone wants to know "how does the body make norepinephrine?", the logical place to start is from the amino acid source. The diagram should be re-drawn as an SVG, though. I'll put that on my to-do list. --Slashme (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - As it stands the idea of shortening the article is inappropriate. The subject simply happens to be complex and we could be doing nobody any favours if we tried to simplify it by evisceration. The run-of-the-mill reader is not likely to read much of this article anyway, so a bit of extra complexity is not really prohibitive. It would be perfectly possible to improve matters by expanding the content and restructuring the topic into separate articles coherently linked, but you won't manage that by by snipping out arbitrary chunks of material; it would require a serious design effort. JonRichfield (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "biosynthesis" section is proportionate to the rest of the article. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My opinion: The biosynthesis section is important to the article, is only 4 paragraphs, several hundred words. and not worth splitting into separate articles. Comment write the RFC with a specific question of the text to be changed, before and after. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heart rate.

Nor adrenaline actually decreases heart rate. reference from Principles of general pharmacology by KD Tripathi. Zaidanzargar (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References to this on the page would need to be adjusted and refs supplied.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

noradrenaline

what is noradrenaline 105.245.173.41 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

those who know💀💀💀 176.64.23.114 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)