Talk:Coniine

Toxicity
the statement that < .2 gm. is fatal to humans is inadequate. toxicity must be described in terms of dosage per unit of body weight, and preferably in terms of the so-called ld50, the dosage that is fatal to 50% of subjects. .2 gm might not be lethal to a 250 lb. adult male, while a much smaller dose would kill an infant.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Concur, and statement lacking per kilogram component were removed from lede. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarracenia
Could someone add sitation for Sarracenia flava containing coniine? --Hannu (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Not fully clear what is meant by this, but S. lava content now appears, even if imperfectly. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarify tag
Article sez:
 * In 1907 the process was still further improved by reducing methyl-2-picolylalkine with phosphorous and hydriodic acid at 125 °C and treating the product with zinc dust and water, then reducing the product with sodium in ethanol.

Now is that phosphorous acid (three os) and hydriodic acid, or is it the element phosphorus (only two os), and hydriodic acid? If it's the element, please correct the spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Literature
Please be aware that sometimes the old published research on alkaloid structure is wrong. The chemists of a century ago had to deduce unknown structures by sequential chemical conversions until they got to something they recognized. Nowadays, spectroscopy makes structure-determination trivial for small molecules like pelletierine...In any case, if you don't know the natural products field too well, please be careful about what you copy into an article, and try to verify the information in more modern sources. Xprofj (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with this statement. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Article needs to state
…clearly and prominently (in lede) which of the two stereoisomers is the one prevalent in each of its natural sources, and which is responsible for its pharmacologic activity. In re: the lede, the existence of both stereoisomers does not speak to which is actually the active natural product in various systems, which or both are the toxin, and whether its distribution from natural sources is always as racemic mixtures, or sometimes somehow biased by biosynthesis. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Found the information and added it to the lede. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits of this date
A wide variety of clarifying or correcting edits were made, by a professional chemist. The only one which may be of controversy, are the edits to the lede, and to the synthesis section. The edits to the lede copied material to the main body, so that it also appears there, so that the lede begins to summarise the article, rather than add to it. Since all material now appears in the lede, there was no need for the citations for the novel material to appear in the lede. In addition, some further general summarising text was added.

In the synthesis section, only two significant changes were made. First, the long stretches of late nineteenth and early 20th century German citations were removed, to appear here below, until they can be reintroduced with some clear purpose. They were removed (i), because one list appeared with a stated 1907 synthesis, without a single one of them being a 1907 citation. Secondly, a further list appeared as being further syntheses leading up to the Diels-Alder,   but without any further description or explanation, one can conlcude only that they are an editor-chosen, and therefore capricious list. (The section all but completely lacks the required secondary sources giving expert context.)

These citations are moved here so they are not lost, but they are (i) mostly incomplete, being without author or title, or both, and so useless for directed followup of any sort (ii) out of any useful context and chosen without explanation, undoubtedly from an unstated secondary source, and so are useless to nearly any reader, including this German-reading expert, and so certainly to the very vast majority of readers of any type. Taken together, they are willy nilly additions, and serve no true encyclopedic purpose.

Second, an expert tag was added, because, despite time and effort spent, without the secondary sources, I could not make all corrections necessary to make the section accurate, as a step to making it encyclopedic. (Encyclopedic assumes appropriate breadth and scope of content.) Most obviously, the section's images do not clearly, and simply correspond to the appearing text, and terms are used for structures that do not appear, and vice versa. Moreover, the section is written by writers unclear as to audience. Whether for expert synthetic chemists, or general readers, the text is poorly written. (The edits I could make assume a general audience, e.g., adding acetaldehyde to the text, since it is acetaldehyde and not paraldehyde that is depicted.)

A wide variety of other edits were made, including correcting citations, removing useless dead links (e.g., to self-published witchcraft pages), etc. It's my expectation that regular editors will see the exhibited expertise, and AGF, and edit selectively (rather than revert, because the article has become less attractive with its tags, though being more accurate for them). I will do more, but this is all for today. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. Okay, so I've fixed discrepancies between images / text, changed some of the wording, added new references. Tbh, I'd remove some of the parts of the text (such as mentions of Conhydrine conversion into Coniine). Do we want to enlist ALL possible ways of making Coniine? I doubt so. I think it'd be enough to mention original synthesis, maybe one more old synthesis, and then leave mentions of current synthesis employing metal organic chemistry and pericyclic reactions. I was not sure if I could actually remove them, so leaving here to a discussion? Emanresucamit (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

pharmacology
Sure that coniine has no effects on the central nervous system? Being lipophilic, it should have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, and its antagonist action does not seem to be strictly confined to the muscle-type nicotinic receptors, as it has been reported to cause ganglionic blockage. This raises the question if central nervous effects (e.g. respiratory center depression) indeed do play a role in coniine toxicity?

Example source for ganglionic blocking effects of coniine: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00500613

--79.240.206.102 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Optical isomers
I have manually edited the chembox with SMILES additions. Hopefully someone can check I have the right enantomers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy between this page and Poison Hemlock
In this article, it’s stated that anyone who dies from coniine poisoning will remain awake and conscious until the cessation of breathing causes suffocation. However, on the page for Conium Maculatum, under the toxicology section, it states that a victim of hemlock poisoning will fall asleep, and that unconsciousness will deepen into a coma until death occurs a few hours later. Is this a discrepancy between the two articles, or does Poison Hemlock have some sleep inducing property that coniine doesn’t? Note: the info drawn from the Poison Hemlock page is sourced, whereas this page doesn’t provide a source for the unconsciousness / nervous system statement. Androvax (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sarracenia
Scientific papers report the presence of coniine in multiple Sarracenia species 14.2.167.27 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)