Talk:HDMP-28

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

Pharmacology 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.

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 HDMP-28. 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

What is the chemical listed on the table with a lower discrimination ratio than cocaine that's labled p,m-Cl2? 184.76.53.217 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-CTMP, though whether it's discrimination ratio adds to reinforcement as this article implies is contradicted in it's own article. Nagelfar (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted Rotation Analog (RRA) of Methylphenidate derivatives. Would a RRA of HDMP-28 cause any profile changes to DAT or SERT affinity? Nagelfar (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discrimination ratios specified in the table appear to be incorrect. In the Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, D.R. values do not line up with those specified.

In the table, 3,4-CTMP (m,p-Cl2) is ranked above methylphenidate (Ph) (D.R. = 1.3, 2.7, respectively). In the Journal, threo-methylphenidate (TMP) is ranked above 3,4-CTMP (D.R. = 0.90  ± 0.09, 2.08  ± 0.05, respectively).

In the table, 4-methylmethylphenidate (p-Me) ranks more than a full point below threo-methylphenidate (Ph) (D.R. = 3.8, 2.7, respectively), while the Journal ranks these (4MeTMP, TMP) at near-parity (D.R. = 1.05  ± 0.02, 0.90  ± 0.09, respectively).

In the table, 3,4-CTMP (m,p-Cl2) ranks below cocaine by more than a full point (D.R.= 2.5, 1.3, respectively), while the Journal ranks these in the inverse, also by more than a full point ((−)-Cocaine, 3,4CTMP) (D.R. = 1.03  ± 0.01, 2.08  ± 0.05, respectively).

The cited sources do not contain any data outlining discrimination ratios for the β-Naphthyl. It appears as though this page's author calculated this on his or her own using [3H]DA figures as their sole guidepost. This is incorrect methodology, as all four compounds in question affect other monoamine transporters, all of which impact their discrimination ratios. Namely, cocaine and methylnaphthidate exhibit SERT blockade, while all four compounds blockade NET to varying degrees. It's for this reason that calculating discrimination ratios against DA uptake alone is imprecise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmaDharma (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]