Talk:Hyperforin

What's the difference between hyperforin and Octahydrohyperforin?
Right now the molecules look identical. 91.158.185.124 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, also tetrahydrohyperforin. They are identical depictions, so are certainly not different names.  Suggest removing them from the table, or creating the correct models. 2605:A000:140A:42A7:3C4F:CE83:510F:C826 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Has it been shown to inhibit UPTAKE or REUPTAKE? These are distinctly different, and I would assume that uptake inhibition of most of the NT's mentioned would make one MORE depressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.158.4 (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MAOI or reuptake inhibitor
Can the part about it supposedly being an MAOI citing a resource from 1999 be removed, new evidence shows it is almost certainly an reuptake inhibitor, later stated in the page; the whole thing is contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.88.144 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Any sources for the neurotransmitter IC50 chart at the bottom of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.84.188 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperforin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221151528/http://mmsl.cz/viCMS/soubory/pdf/IN_PRESS_18102013_Imreova.pdf to http://mmsl.cz/viCMS/soubory/pdf/IN_PRESS_18102013_Imreova.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent cleanup considered overzealous
User:Zefr did some cleanup in this diff but I think it went a bit too far. The article no longer mentions the believed primary MOA (binding to and activating TRPC6) and the biochemistry/pharmacology section is now barren. The lead was also changed to "there is little evidence that hyperforin and St. John's wort have any effect on depression" which is blatantly false (see this 2016 meta analysis). Frankly I feel like reverting many of the deletions.

Could I get some feedback, perhaps from User:Medgirl131 and User:Jytdog?

— Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I readded slightly rephrased versions of the (hopefully non-controversial) stuff in this diff. – Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted as outdated primary research. Left a note on Erik's talk page. --Zefr (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair I guess, although I still think it's a shame the scope of Wikipedia is limited in this fashion, since I know no other Wiki for stuff like this. Thanks for adding the new section, greatly appreciated. --Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The chapter on pharmacodynamics is unclear
The text seems to say the opposite of what the table shows or maybe I don't know how it works, usually in articles that talk about inhibitory drugs like SSRIs the Ki value is used in the table and the lower the value the greater the inhibition instead in this case we are talking about IC50 so I suppose that the higher value means higher inhibition.--Unvers (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)