Talk:Synephrine

Confusion

There has been some confusion surrounding synephrine and phenylephrine (a.k.a. neo-synephrine). While virtually identical in chemical makeup (C₉H₁₃NO₂) the hydroxyl group in phenylephrine is located on the number three carbon of the benzene ring, whereas in synephrine the hydroxyl group is located on the number four carbon. This small difference manifests changes in the stereochemistry that may alter the biological activity of the two compounds. Therefore, they should not be seen as equivalents.

Can someone explain what that means in English and not chemistry jargon? I understand that it's technical chemistry terminology but how does synephrines effects differ from phenylephrine? --Arm

Unfortunately, in plain English it would only be a couple of words "phenylephrine (neo-synephrine) is not the same as synephrine (oxedrine)". Happy? Now if you want to know why they are different, learn chemistry. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Stereochemistry

How does moving the hydroxy from 3 to 4 effect the stereochemistry of the compound? Neither move affects the chirality of the compound.

-- Stereochemistry is more than just chirality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereochemistry

Use in methamphetaime manufacture

Okay, who wrote this: "its use in methamphetamine manufacture"? Regardless, I removed it as any chemist can see that it's very difficult to bring about such a transformation as one would need to destroy the ethylamine backbone in order to make the isopropylamine, and that's to say nothing about the aromatic hydroxyl. Methamphetamine is impossible (on a practical level) to make from phenylephrine and the chemistry of the latter is sufficiently similar with that of the title compound to have made the above statement stand out in the mind of most lay people (yes, even non-chemists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.9.102 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Synpephine is not and never was a starting material for the production of amphetamines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.72.125 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest Revision/Expansion

This article was re-written in order to improve its focus, and to clarify the relationships and distinctions between its principal subject, synephrine, synephrine-containing plant products, and synephrine-containing drug mixtures.

More technical details than usual have been included because such details are often mis-quoted, misunderstood, or selectively cited to support a particular agenda.Xprofj (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Article lead needs work

The article lead does not start out simple, and continues into controversy before we start the main article. For instance It is important to distinguish sounds like commentary, rather than something belongs in the article lead.

It needs rework, and some removal of ambiguity, for instance the way it is written one could assume that it is naturally occurring in some approved drug products. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the way it it is written sounds like someone desperately trying to defend synephrine supplements while at the same time trying to sound neutral. In my head, the general message of it sounds like this "don't confuse supplement mixes for the drug by itself, it's also in a bunch of things anyway, what's the big deal? Trust me it's super safe...here's my card". The whole thing needs rewriting from an editor with more expertise than me but I've already spotted a reference with a dead link in my first 5 seconds of looking for mistakes (hint: it's the first one.)--Rpm2004 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The paragraph in the lead starting "It is important to distinguish ..." is pure guff, and should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pharmacology way too long

The massive section regarding the pharmacology at various receptors doesn't need to be so long, could easily be condensed into a table with the relevant receptors, concentrations and (possibly) the animal model used to test with. As it reads now is just an absurd information dump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.111.206 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)