Talk:Small molecule

Sources...
"Small molecule" gets 8082 hits in pubmed, so I'm sure we can find a few... :)

To start, how about these:

Just as a start... &mdash; Scientizzle 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the feeling I have asked a silly question: I was looking for a paper with a definition in it, which is a waste of time, in particular, I was looking for a nature reviews as they give a definition of some words on the side. but I suppose that if everyone concurs on the definition I can just cite one of these (I might actually read more than the abstract on the first one, it seems interesting (and short)). Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As if to ask. I check Artificial transcription factor which refers to protein only. --Squidonius (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: too specific?
Does anyone else think that See Also section is getting populated with items that are overly specific. I might focus on adding broader terms, such as neurotransmitter, where appropriate. Since the article is rated top importance for the pharmacology project, I think that we should aim the material for as broad of an audience is possible. Shanata (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I went ahead and trimmed the list. Boghog (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Molecular weight cutoff
is that really so that the upper limit for a small molecular weight molecule goes to 800 daltons. however as far as absorption is concerned, we generally draw the line at 300 daltons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.183.72 (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A reasonable MW cutoff is at least 500 (see Lipinski's Rule of Five) and there are orally active antibiotics whose MW is as high as 800. So I think 800 is a reasonable cutoff.  Boghog (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable cutoff if you can cite a source for it. --Genya Avocado (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A small molecule is defined as one that can rapidly diffuse across cell membranes and hence have the possibility to be orally available. Of orally available drugs, the macrolide antibiotics are at the high end of the molecular range, 700–900 Daltons. Boghog (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Small molecules are often considered superior........
With all due respect to the parties involved, the material inserted with this edit seems to represent a severely limited understanding of pharmacology.

On top of just being plain wrong, there are a number of obvious WP policies which the statement seems to contravene, including WP:WEASEL and, given the fact this thing is cited to an unrecoverable 1991 Toronto star article, apparently WP:V.

I would highly recommend we take a second look at eliminating this line. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually rereading, I see the "considered superior" part was removed which mitigates the WP:WEASEL concerns; however, this statement is still just plain wrong on the basis that many many small molecule drugs can't be administered orally. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the above statement seems to represent a severely limited understanding of drug development. No biologic can be orally administered whereas most small molecules that have been approved as drugs (see table below) can. The key word is small molecule drug.  Of course not all small molecules can be given orally.  However the pharmaceutical industry works quite hard (as documented in [3], [4], and [5]) in making sure that the majority that are brought to market are orally active.  Hence oral bioavailability is a key differentiator between small molecule drugs and biologics. Boghog (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need a working citation. Here is one that could be used to support the statement:


 * I have replaced the 1991 Toronto Star citation with the one directly above. Boghog (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also modified the sentence to remove any possible misinterpretation. Boghog (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Below is a table of the top 20 drugs by total prescriptions in 2011 (note: duplicates are the same drug from different manufacturers).  It is striking that every single one of these is a small molecule that is also orally bioavailable.


 * The top 20 drugs by dollars include the biologics Humira, Enbrel, Remicade, Neulasta, Rituxan, and Epogen, none of which are orally bioavailable. The remainder of this top 20 list are all orally bioavailable small molecules. Boghog (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well with the rephrasing and re-referencing of the sentence in question I think most of my concern were essentially addressed. Thanks for your time and attention. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

History
Humans have obviously been making "small molecules" for a long time -- well before the need for the term itself. The article should provide a citation that indicates when this term was introduced, and if identifiable, by whom. Google Ngram Viewer suggests that the collocation took off between 1950 and 1970, but I haven't examined the actual matches to see whether these represent the pharmaceutical sense or not. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No Longer my Quality Question
§I am just wondering if " sonic hedgehog " is correct terminology mentioned in inset at bottom right of article, i.e.: Cell culture example of a small molecule as a tool instead of a protein. in cell culture to obtain a pancreatic lineage from mesodermal stem cells the retinoic acid signalling pathway must be activated while the [--see-- sonic hedgehog --] pathway inhibited, which can be done by adding to the media anti-shh antibodies, [--see-- Hedgehog --] interacting protein or cyclopamine, the first two are protein and the last a small molecule.[8]

p.s. NOTE: I found interesting terminology clarification at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog 71.102.110.221 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)good_badger@hotmail.com

Say What?
This article is incomprehensible intellectual gobbledygoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.244.10 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"size on the order of 1 nm"
I've added a "citation needed" tag for "size on the order of 1 nm" as I cannot find size details in any of the current citations and it's difficult to find on any website other than commercial market-research pages. Might somebody have an academic/encyclopedia/etc reference?

page redirect
Can an Admin implement a 'micromolecule' page redirect here?72.174.131.123 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)