Talk:Abscisic acid

	This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.

Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Plants High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elsewhere on the web I read that abscisic acid is responsible for geotropism (roots growing downwards). Could some expert confirm this and put it in the article if it's true?

It isn't true. The downward growth of roots is due to stratoliths,

Abscisic acid is transported via the xylem and the phloem, it is more abundant in the pholem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.54.171 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen various people in the online heroin community referring to diphenhydramine (active ingredient in Benadryl) as "dormin". Apparently, heroin is frequently cut with that stuff. But "dormin" only redirects here. Confusing. --63.25.108.100 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If abscisic acid is abscisin II, is there an abscisin I? There is not Wikipedia article Abscisin. Icek (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is another compound that causes abscission and it was discovered before abscisic acid (original discovery of abscisin II was in 1963: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/3599/1592). This is a normal way of scientists naming things. Smartse (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but unfortunately that doesn't answer the question what abscisin or abscisin I actually is. Merriam-Webster OnLine claims that the word was used already in 1961. Icek (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Merck index lists in a note at the bottom of the abscisic acid listing-Abscisin I, from an article by Okhuma et al., Science 142, 1592 (1963) ,<ref>The Merck Index, 11th edition, page 2, Abscisic acid.The Merck Index, 11th edition, page 2, Abscisic acid; Okhuma et al., Science 142, 1592 (1963) ChemChaos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.193.22 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The given CAS number cannot be found in http://www.commonchemistry.org/NoResults.aspx?reg=14375-45-2 but "abscisic acid" can be found with the CAS number 21293-29-8. If its truly wrong could someone with enough rights please take care of that? Else delete my comment. Thanks a lot.

CAS#21293-29-8 is the correct number for the natural

racemic mixture. I have updated the infobox accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the problem. -- Ed (Edgar181

)

Summary box - if it melts at 163 C and boils at 458.7 C it does not sublime. Biosynthesis - "in MEP" does not make sense. In Animals - otherS show Wh(delete l)ile References - 20 - The article title link is dead. Capitalize words of article & journal title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.92.164 (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed mentions of anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and blood sugar management as references did not meet standards for medical-related information, i.e, review, systemic review or meta-analyses of human trials. An issued U.S. patent is not considered sufficient evidence.David notMD (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]