Talk:Synsepalum dulcificum

stevia
"stevia now labeled as a "dietary supplement" needs to be updated with accompanying references as it is no longer listed as a supplement and can now be sold and advertised as a sweetener in the United States. I do not have enof of the reference to  feel comfortable making the changes the change happend in 2008 or 2009 but on of the products now beeing heavily marketed is called "truvia"  but thier are menny other products on the shelf. -kateweb

Blueberries phrase
Somebody had written in the article that the miracle fruit "grows well with blueberries." Not only is this vague (what does that even mean?), if the author meant to say that they grow well NEXT TO blueberries then this is incorrect, since blueberries are a temperate plant; they need winter chill to fruit, and in general won't do too well in the tropics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.89.50 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

i have a question
Why don't anybody post what is the flavor of miracle fruit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.8.85 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Miracle fruit with slight sweet and sour taste. Besides this, there is no other distinct flavor. --118.101.162.1 (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Climate
Also is the Pacific Northwest good enough climate for the fruit? i live in Bellingham Wa, close to canada, and would like to invest in a plant or seeds. --Cryotwin 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Different names
Does anyone know about the different botanical names for this plant? The following website states the name as Synsepalum Dulcificum. There is a picture of a published book with this title at this link. I don't know enough about it to research but wanted to draw attention to this incongruency. http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/plant/Miracle-Fruit.htm --Charangito 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs/Forums in the external links
So this issue can be discussed properly I'm bringing this to the discussion page. Links to blogs and forums were removed, then re-added with the question as to why they shouldn't be there. Please see WP:EL links normally to be avoided #7 and #10. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository of links.

I am removing the links again. Gh5046 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifications. I still believe that the forum link is suitable though.  Tu rk ey ph an t 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
"Bacchanalian" tasting parties? That doesn't seem NPOV to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resuna (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues of harm
Could this possibly be used to mask poisons? Cause poison is "sour or bitter" usually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 08havoc (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The CSI: NY episode Forbidden Fruit features this fruit, in a murder at a tasting party. --Auric (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC) That settles it. Awesome. CSI is a reliable source. GROW UP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.97.123 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The core plot element was that one guest fed another 1.5 ml of sodium hydroxide (lye; main ingredient in Drano and other drain cleaners), which tasted sweet because of the effect of the fruit, but dissolved her upper digestive tract and caused her to bleed to death. --Jerzy•t 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Late sig
 * Anonther harmfull poison (though not as fast acting as drain cleaner) in that CSI episode was drinking large ammounts of cod liver oil. Although it is a healthy fat, drinking it excessively could cause obesity. 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.70.238 (talk)
 * Excessive cod liver oil will burden the liver and cause liver breakdown if overdose for long period. Now all cod liver oil bottle come with warning not to take more than recommended dosage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.162.1 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary benefit
What benefit does the substance confer on the plant that synthesizes it? --Jerzy•t 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it induce  a vector-animal species to swallow & spread its seeds, without the energy cost of synthesizing sugars that the vectors use (as an energy source) as more conventionally sweet fruit-bearing plants do? Is the vector conditioned by the sweetness sensations to hang around eating its bitter & sour neighbors, and to then eat more miracle fruit to keep tasting more sweet sensations? Is the fruit itself sweet? (To humans? To its seed vectors?)
 * 2) Many interesting plant chemicals are neuro-toxins to species that eat or otherwise damage the plant without helping spread the seeds. (Presumably including: our favorite alkaloids like caffeine, theobromine, theophylline, quinine;  morphine and cocaine; i would bet -- unless they're just irritants -- most of the popular spices like mints, peppers, cinnamon, citrus oils, etc.) Is this substance the result of something similar, that just happens to screw up our sensory apparatus in a way that is harmless in the long term?

It has been used in my native Ghana for centuries. We used to eat that with oranges which were not that sweet. They are wonderful. Yes, it thrives in tropical weather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.8.61 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The berry's seed are bitter. My own assumption : miraculin property encourage animal to eat it together with sour fruits to promote the bitter seed germination. --Tan S.L. (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Miraculin, the active component, is considered a secondary metabolite, and therefore not resulting in immediate death, but rather in long-term impairment of the organism's survivability, fecundity, or aesthetics, or perhaps in no significant change at all. -MiracleFruitDallasDOTcom, 13 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.228.194 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

History section
The first paragraph of the History section come off as rather conspiratorial. In particular, it belies an essential ignorance of how things gain FDA approval and the role of the 1994 Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act. Indeed, the DSHEA typically is employed to bypass regulation and hawk products whose efficacy and safety is dubious. This was exactly the case with stevia for awhile. Shawn M. O&#39;Hare (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to human being curiosity nature, most people who consume miracle fruits will always lead to ulcers and stomach aches, for tasting too much acidic food. Since FDA officer are still human being, so I suspect they experience the same things, hence they shelf it. Nevertheless, FDA didn't ban the berry nor miraculin pills. --Tan S.L. (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indented line Haha, can you cite that? 68.230.108.118 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)qr

Well the whole FDA thing seems to be a large imagination of vendors of the fruits, here my opinion on this, I see no facts and since Miracle Fruit has some clear disadvantages I think those are more limitations that some conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.199.44 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentions in fiction
May or may not be worth mentioning except for completeness sake. There was an extensive and amusing segment about the fruit in the north american TV series 'United States Of Tara' recently (as of writing). 203.134.28.230 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lettuce
The wired article about the lettuce is not online anymore. And it has so many innerlink, that I do not know how to savely remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.198.5 (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72251 is working for me. Their site might have been having temporary problems? -- Quiddity (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved this content to Miraculin. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture references
I disagree entirely with the inclusion of references to the Future Foods episode in a "Pop Culture" section of this article. I'd remove it, but I've already removed the paragraph from the article twice, and I'd rather not edit war.

I removed it the first time with the reasoning that just because some food-show host had a crazy idea (that won't work) doesn't mean that we should present it here as fact. World hunger is caused by social and economic problems, not bad-tasting cacti. (If a person can't buy rice, where are they going to get miracle fruit tablets? This is just as stupid as the Marie Antoinette logic: "If they have no bread, Let them eat cake.")

After it was added back (this time as a pop culture item), I removed it reasoning that passing mentions in TV are included only if that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources (see WP:IPC). The idea that miracle fruit can end world hunger is ridiculous. I see no indication that the episode has been covered by secondary sources showing its significance to understanding miracle fruit.

I'd also like to add that the fruit has been a central point in episodes of several TV shows (as discussed above), and all of those instances have been nixed as inappropriate.

If anyone else agrees that it does not belong, please remove it. –  j ak s mata  17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding world hunger and tablets, please note that tablets are not necessary. Freeze dried berries work just fine, although would cost more to ship. Miraculin has also been isolated in its pure form. Less than 100 mg of powder is necessary to elicit desired response. -MiracleFruitDallasDOTcom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.228.194 (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures and citation
I have some packs of tablets in the house, would you like some pictures of the tablets to support the chapter: Freeze-dried form. I also helped to write the article http://www.miracle-fruit.net/comparison-miracle-fruit-tablets.html and if you like you can use the pictures I made (I have more).

--Reedge (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation not online anymore and no Google cache or Archive.org
I found a page in Google that is currently not online anymore but says fresh frut has 2-3 days shelf-live. But the page is now offline but it is the largest reseller and grower of fresh fruit in the USA. Here is the way I found it, now how to make this citation more durable if the source gives me an error now Google cache and no Archive.org page stored. Its the only page where I trust the source since he is a grower of the fruit and does not sell any tablets. (the tablet guys sites I do not trust as a source for shelflive on fresh fruit. Source http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amiraclefruitman.com+shelf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

What to do now with this citation?

--Reedge (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Berries "discovered" is offensive to native african peoples
The article clearly states that native people had been eating this berries for hundereds of years before Europeans came to Africa. Saying that they were "discovered" in the 1700s is offensive to the native peoples who had been there previously. I'm going to change it to read "documented" because it is less ethno-centric.
 * Heh, that's strange, I was just about to complain on here about the use of the word "documented" for the same reason - oral ethnobotanical knowledge is just as valid (often more so) as European written botanical knowledge. I'll change it to "documented by Europeans". --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded it altogether. I think it fits better now :) --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

West African name(s), modern usage
Does anyone have any sources that go into further detail about its use in Africa? Is it still used by people there, or has its use fallen by the wayside over the centuries? In addition, what names does it have in West African languages? --86.146.162.13 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving this article to Synsepalum dulcificum was incorrect

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Synsepalum dulcificum → — This article is about the fruit of the plant, not the plant itself. Therefore, it should be located at "Miracle fruit", the name of the fruit, not "Synsepalum dulcificum", the name of the plant. Reading the text, it describes both the plant and the fruit, but the great majority of the text describes the fruit.

I feel strongly enough about this that I'd move it back myself right now, but someone has copied/pasted the text from here into the Miracle fruit article, so an admin will have to do it. –  j ak s mata  20:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this article should be located at "Miracle Fruit," the common name of the fruit, not "Synsepalum dulcificum," the scientific name of the plant. As noted by Jaksmata, this article primarily discusses the fruit, not the plant. Look at the naming convention for articles covering other fruits. For example, the article covering the mandarin orange is named "Mandarin orange," not the scientific name of the plant (Citrus reticulata). Charlrob (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we will need a separate article on the plant species anyway, wouldn't it be better to just split off information on the fruit into an article called Miracle fruit? Ucucha 08:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough information on the plant itself to make more than a stub. Also, I think that having two separate articles would just cause a lot of duplication of information, and I don't see any benefit in splitting this article. I disagree that we will need a separate article on the plant. –  j ak s mata  15:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that "having two separate articles would just cause a lot of duplication of information, and I don't see any benefit in splitting this article." Discussion of the fruit should be under the discussion of the plant, even if the fruit is the major part of the article.  That is standard operating practice. See Naming conventions (flora). I'd like to know what the common name was before the "miracle berry" hype. --Bejnar (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the naming convention you cite, under the heading "Scientific versus common names", it states: "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" (emphasis mine).
 * This article states that the plant is cultivated and the fruit sold for profit (agricultural and economic use). It also implies that it is used culturally in West Africa in pre-meal traditions. Therefore, under that guideline, the common name should be used as the article title, no matter how much hype is associated with the name. If there is a different common name, I've never heard it. –   j ak s mata  19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Further evidence that the fruit has significance outside the field of botany: the phenomenon of "miraculin" or "flavor tripping" parties that are discussed in the article, citing the New York Times (coverage of the party trend can also be found in numerous other media sources). This is evidence of use of the fruit in Western culture.


 * In addition, Japan has a pair of restaurants named "Miracle Fruit Café" that serve low-calorie meals in conjunction with miracle fruit. Again, this would seem to point to economic/cultural use of the fruit outside the field of botany.


 * Regarding the common name of the fruit: Since the 1960s, when Western researchers first began studying miracle fruit, the common name of the fruit has been "miracle fruit." Evidence of the use and acceptance of the common name "miracle fruit" can be found in research papers published in 1960s, as well as FDA documents.Charlrob (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to vernacular name. The plant has multiple vernacular names and the term "miracle fruit" can be ambiguous. For the reasons at WP:AT, such as precision and consistency, I think the scientific name is just dandy. Rkitko (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Disagree with "This article is about the fruit of the plant, not the plant itself." It is actually about both fruit and plant; or rather, it is about the plant in general, a broader topic which subsumes the narrower topic of the fruit. Hesperian 23:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest the opening sentence be revised to put the species first, then mention its interesting fruit. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support using vernacular name. On the evidence available, the most notable thing about the species is the property of its fruit, and the naming conventions for flora are clear that vernacular names are allowed in such cases (see comment by Jaksmata above). An unscientific search on Google Scholar suggests that it's not unusual for reliable sources to call it "Miracle fruit (Synsepalum dulcificum)". More pragmatically, most readers will be looking for an article on the berry, so using the scientific name as the title is likely to be offputting. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Miracle fruit
Assertions that "miracle fruit" almost always applies to this species, and none other, need to be supported by reliable sources. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that the common name for Synsepalum dulcificum is "Miracle fruit." One simply has to do a Google scholar search for "Miracle fruit." The first 40+ results ALL point to articles on Synsepalum dulcificum when one searches for "Miracle fruit" on Google scholar. The evidence is overwhelming. Here is just a small sample of evidence:

Linda M. Bartoshuk, (9 August 1973.) Sweet taste induced by miracle fruit (Synsepalum dulcificum) Physiology & Behavior

GE Inglett, B Dowling, JJ Albrecht, FA … Taste Modifiers, Taste-Modifying Properties of Miracle Fruit (Synsepalum Dulcificum)Journal of Agricultural …, 1965 - ACS Publications

K Kurihara, LM Beidler Taste-modifying protein from miracle fruit.Science (New York, NY), 1968

S Theerasilp, Y Kurihara Complete purification and characterization of the taste-modifying protein, miraculin, from miracle fruit.Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1988 - ASBMB

JN Brouwer, H Van der Wel, A Francke, GJ Henning Miraculin, the sweetness-inducing protein from miracle fruitNature 220, 3'''73 - 374 (26 October 1968)

RE Buckmire, FJ Francis Anthocya'''nins and flavonols of miracle fruit, Synsepalum dulcificum, SchumJournal of Food Science, 1976

N Takahashi, H Hitotsuya, H Hanzawa, Y Arata, … Structural study of asparagine-linked oligosaccharide moiety of taste-modifying protein, miraculinJournal of Biological …, 1990

GE Inglett, JF May Tropical plants with unusual taste propertiesEconomic Botany, 1968

RE Buckmire, FJ Francis Pigments of miracle fruit, Synsepalum dulcificum, Schum, as potential food colorants Journal of Food Science, 1978

The other common names that you are adding to this article are not used with enough frequency to be relevant. Charlrob (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The other common names are used, so should be listed. That is because some people coming to Wikipedia in search of information about this speices will have a common name other than your favorite.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please show us the evidence to back up your position. How many reputable and recent sources use the obscure names that you are promoting? Charlrob (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I listed common names in the article, with reliable sources; Charlrob reverted me.  Charlrob, I asked you to stop reverting me, yet you continue. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this the place where one can report exotic effects? E.G. I tried it the other day; and I smelled nothing unusual with a lemon (or subsequently with a tomato) when they approached my mouth. But the instant the lemon/tomato went in my mouth I got the taste/smell of rotting citrus/tomato sufficiently intense for an involuntary hand raise to my mouth and spitting. I still detected nothing in the plain smell of either.YouRang? (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Parsing error involving quote characters
Currently there is a parsing error on the page, whereby miracle fruit is being rendered as if it were 'miracle fruit' . That is, bold is turned on, then there is a displayed single quote character, then italic is turned on. There is a related bug report on WikiMedia and I guess this is the result of someone trying to fix that bug. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The parsing error seems to have been fixed. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the parsing. The last bold of the paragraph was missing a " ' " and thus changing the parsing of the entire sentence beginning with the bolded "miracle fruit".-- Kev  min  § 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)



Tablets
Now several different editors have found this photo on Commons and added it to the article, and other editors have removed it as touting one brand over others. What say you all? Is this photo appropriate? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another photo, on the left. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gymnema sylvestre and Thaumatococcus daniellii
These are entirely separate, unrelated, plant species. They do not belong in the first paragraph of an article on the plant species Synsepalum dulcificum. This issue was already previously discussed and resolved in previous edits. It was resolved by placing Thaumatococcus daniellii in a separate "See also" section at the end of the article. As before, I believe that is where this information belongs -- not in the opening paragraph. Can we reach a consensus on this? Charlrob (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those two species share with this species the common name miracle fruit. I mentioned the other species largely to avoid sending readers to the disambiguation page, but also because it is so interesting that these other species have a similar property.  That makes miracle fruit less a common name than a collective name.  One alternative is to make a deliberate link to the disambiguation page miracle fruit without mentioning the other species;  however, I think many readers would follow the link to the disambiguation page who actually want this article.  Another alternative is to move the entire discussion of common names out of the first paragraph and into a separate paragraph later in the intro.  On the whole I favor this last option. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, the article Sugar substitute has a long list of natural sugar substitutes, one derived from each of these three species called miracle fruit. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sweet berry"
Is there a citation for the use of the name "sweet berry" for Synsepalum dulcificum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlrob (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I will add a few to the article.  Here are a couple more:   64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another here in Mansfeld's encyclopedia of agricultural and horticultural crops, Volume 2 which is from 2001 and should be noted for not using the term "miracle fruit" at any point. -- Kev  min  § 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweetness Perception
This sentence is incorrect: "Common names for this species and its berry include miracle fruit[2] and miracle berry. These common names are shared also by Gymnema sylvestre and Thaumatococcus daniellii,[2] two other species that are used to alter the perceived sweetness of foods."

The protein found in Thaumatococcus daniellii (thaumatin) works quite differently than the protein found in (Synsepalum dulcificum). Miraculin itself is not sweet -- but it modifies sweetness perception temporarily by binding to the taste buds. In contrast, thaumatin is "an intensely sweet protein," but does not change the way the taste buds function.

I believe this distinction was discussed and resolved in previous edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlrob (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence is correct. Yes, the mechanisms differ;  however the uses are similar, and that is why these two species share common names with this species.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gymnema sylvestre
Gymnema sylvestre does not produce fruit or berries; it is an herb. Aside from the single reference provided, is there any evidence that Gymnema sylvestre is being actually called "miracle fruit" or "miracle berry," as the article currently states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlrob (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please see additional sources for the common name miracle fruit applied to this species on the species article: Gymnema sylvestre.  64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right, the sources clearly show the shared common name between these three species. I've tweaked the disambiguation page, Miracle fruit, into a set index page according to the plant naming guideline, and an example, at WikiProject_Plants:
 * Ambiguous common names, applied to multiple taxa, are to be listed on a set index article.
 * Tree peony (set index article)
 * Also, it's more typical to have the various common names of a plant in bold, in parentheses, just after the article's name, as shown at the same guideline: "Hesperoyucca whipplei (syn. Yucca whipplei; Our Lord's Candle, Spanish Bayonet, Quixote Yucca, Common Yucca) is a species of flowering plant...", though I think that particular guideline is not followed quite as strictly. First Light (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Family etc.
Missing from the template are Family: Subfamily: Tribe: Jidanni (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

FDA Controversy
The article needs to explain what was the negative or dampening effect of this thing's active ingredients being labeled a 'food additive'. Since including them in another product is&mdash;on its face&mdash;an addition to the original food, both who cares? and how could they not have expected that result, let alone had their entire prospective business plan scuttled and started in on sugar-cartel sabotage? What, exactly, was onerous about their categorization by the FDA? It certainly doesn't ban them. — Llywelyn II   09:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the claims about the FDA have very little references to be based off of. After a bit of searching, the claims I've found all refer back to the BBC article referenced. In this article, all the claims about the FDA are simple accusations made by the two people who were trying to commercialize the berries (the Miralin Company). I doesn't appear that the BBC (or any other agency) has confirmed any of the claims made by these people. Furthermore, contrary to the statement that "[the FDA] refused to release any files on the subject", the article referenced states that the Miralin Company said the FDA did release files (although they were heavily blacked out according to them). I'm going to remove these faulty comments and I think they should remain that way unless someone provides a better reference. Golmschenk (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Miraculin binds protons????
I have no specific knowledge of the chemical properties of miraculin. I have enough general knowledge of physics to know that the idea of binding protons is absurd. Binding of protons would require a nuclear reaction. Chemicals bind using the electrostatic attraction between electrons and nuclei having fixed numbers of protons. Molecules bind atoms and molecules, not protons. Surely this line in the first paragraph needs to change from "miraculin binds protons" to "miraculin binds proteins". Or was something else intended? Surely protons is incorrect. Jeffj900 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC).
 * I will change it if you haven't already. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon following the ref and checking a few other sources it appears that protons is correct. It is speculated that acids donate protons to the miraculin and thereby active receptors on the tongue. The sentence should probably be rewritten and a better explanation - a ref, should be added.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Unit systems mixed :(
In the Characteristics section we have a height given in feet and then leaf measurements in centimeters. Can someone end the madness and make it all metric or all Imperial? 24.57.69.111 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)