![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This ref [1] states "Pain perception is altered in the spinal cord and higher CNS levels" and "Opiate agonists do not alter the threshold or responsiveness of afferent nerve endings to noxious stimuli, nor peripheral nerve impulse conduction"
User:Brandmeister My understand is that one still realizes their is pain but just no longer cares. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A recent paper has demonstrated the production of morphinr through engineering the necessary biochemical pathways into yeast cells. These convert sugar into morphine. This may open the way to factory production as opposed to relying on harvested poppy. [1]
References
OK, so:
So this should not come into WP yet. Jytdog ( talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
For Onset of action the infobox has "5 min (IV), 15 min (IM),[3] 20 min (PO)[4]"
The body of the article has very little about this.
The Pharmacodynamics section has "Morphine is a rapid-acting narcotic, ..." without a citation or further elaboration. The "Medical uses" section has "Morphine is primarily used to treat both acute and chronic severe pain." though without a citation. One would think that for the treatment of acute pain that an onset of action of a few seconds would be desirable.
What I was trying to discover is more detail about the onset of action, and what happens during the first few seconds, minutes, and hours. The duration that it's effective also needs clarification. The infobox has "Biological half-life: 2–3 h" and the article has "Its duration of analgesia is about three to seven hours." -- Marc Kupper| talk 00:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Dependence and withdrawal section seems to be about addicts only, not patients. No info on long term use and cessation of therapy (tapering of dose). Prevalence ( talk) 15:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Morphine. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The section describing the salts of morphine should not include heroin. Heroin is not a salt of morphine, and calling it "morphine di-acetate" is incorrect; it is di-acetyl morphine, and it is the di-acetyl ester of morphine. The salts are ionic compounds formed when an anion (Cl-, SO42-, citrate and yes, even acetate) is bonded to the nitrogen atom. They are all essentially just water-soluble forms of morphine. All of the salts will release morphine base when a strong alkali is added to their water solutions, which will precipitate out of solution. Doing the same to a salt of heroin will release heroin base, not morphine. Adding acetic acid to morphine creates the acetate salt; there is no such thing as the di-acetate salt of morphine. To create heroin, refluxing with acetic anhydride is necessary. All of the salts are slightly less potent than morphine, because some of the weight of the administered salt is just the anion. A simple calculation (the molecular mass of the salt, divided by the molecular mass of morphine, multiplied by the desired dose of morphine, will give the weight of the morphine salt required to be administered. There is no such relationship between heroin and morphine, and in fact, heroin is more potent than morphine because it is a different chemical compound to morphine. I will revisit this page in a few weeks and will remove the statements about heroin from the section concerning the salts of morphine, unless someone can produce evidence that my assertions are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At least I try ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
We cannot use large quotes so reverted. [7] This is also though of as a medication first so we should mention that first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The pharmacokinetics in the Infobox and those in the article are wrong/inconsistent. One source for the Infobox is specifically only for the rectal route, and the other for children. Peak plasma onset for oral route (PO) is, for example, widely quoted as 30–90 minutes, not 20 (Infobox) nor 30 (text). One better source (of thousands) might be PMID 2057987, though there are probably better or at least newer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.151.83 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
No sure why the spelling was changed from British to American or the simplification in the lead was removed? [8]
Not sure what thuis means "morphine msy affect the baby"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The concern with morphine and all opioids is the window between therapeutic and over- doses. But nowhere in the article is this made apparent. We don't know what dose is overdose?! I can't find any non-animal studies. Obviously, we can't actually conduct a study, but we could know from survey and accidental overdoses, what the fatal dose is; I think we do know. And what's the minimum therapeutic dose for acute and chronic pain? Any help? Sbalfour ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The article for Dopamine opens with "Dopamine (...) is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families. It functions both as a hormone and a neurotransmitter, and plays several important roles in the brain and body."
By contrast, the opening sentence of this article has tended to prioritize the medical and commercial applications of morphine over its function in nature. Compare the following revisions:
It is apparent that the emphasis has been gradually changing, perhaps reflecting growing awareness among scientists and even medical professionals of the natural role of morphine in the human and animal body. However the current version still seems wrong to me. Why would we describe a natural signaling molecule as first and foremost a "pain medication"? And under what circumstances is it proper to emphasize the commercial and medical applications of a substance over its natural biological role? Consider the article for Human Growth Hormone, which doesn't even mention drug applications of HGH until the second paragraph. Consider the article for Water, which doesn't get into the economic significance of water until the fourth paragraph.
However, I'm wondering what is the correct description to use. Is morphine a hormone or a neurotransmitter or both (like dopamine)? Are these terms even very precise? I've found a number of scientific papers talking about the synthesis of morphine in the body, but none of them seem to adopt a terminology for describing its function. A5 ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Boghog:. I saw those papers, but what does "homeopathic concentrations" mean? Based upon my understanding of homeopathy, I thought that meant "less than one molecule" which is why I stopped reading the paper at that point. And what do you mean by "alarm bells"? Is there a suggestion of bad faith or just that the researchers don't know what they are doing? On p. 9786 of PMID 3467337, from 1986, it describes measuring morphine concentrations of 5-25 pmol/g, which seems like 1-7 parts per billion, in the cow's brain. This corresponds to a total of several micrograms, indeed small compared to the dosage of morphine as a drug, but maybe not small given what could be expected to cross the blood-brain barrier when injected as a typical 2mg dose for humans? And for example this article describes reference HGH concentrations in humans of 5 parts per billion, which is in the same range. Here is a paper PMID 26123500 describing dopamine concentrations in the brain of 1.5 parts per billion (0.3 - 8 ppb), which is again similar. Is there some criterion for deciding whether a molecule is important in the body in this concentration? Are you suggesting that morphine only exists in the body as a metabolite of some more important molecule? What other molecules are known to activate the same receptors? Let me know if I'm reading these wrong, but the only difference I see is that morphine is much more profitable than the other molecules - which seems hardly relevant to its biological classification. A5 ( talk) 07:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
but what does "homeopathic concentrations" mean?is an excellent question which I am not sure of the answer myself. If they mean it in a literal sense, then I completely agree with you ("alarm bells" ≡ "why I stopped reading the paper"). But what I suspect they meant is very low concentrations, but still more than one molecule. Please keep in mind that the binding of morphine to its receptor is completely reversible and hence its activity is thresholded. If the level of endogenous morphine never reaches its threshold value, the receptor will not be significantly occupied and hence the endogenous morphine will have no pharmacologic effect, in which case it cannot be classified as a neurotransmitter. So the critical question is does the concentration of endogenous morphine ever get close its EC50 value (i.e, EC50/10 = 1.8 nM/10 = ~0.18 nM)? The literature that you quote is signficantly below that value. Boghog ( talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: is there a reference for this EC50 value of 1.8 nM? Thanks. A5 ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Endogenous morphinergic signaling, in concert with NO-coupled signaling systems, has evolved as an autocrine/paracrine regulator of metabolic homeostasis, energy metabolism, mitochondrial respiration and energy production. Basic physiological processes involving morphinergic/NO-coupled regulation of mitochondrial function, with special emphasis on the cardiovascular system, are critical to all organismic survival. Key to this concept may be the phenomenon of mitochondrial enslavement in eukaryotic evolution via endogenous morphine.Addendum: there are 8 review articles that cite this study.
@ Boghog: you said "Hence I believe that the order of presentation, starting with drug (whose effects are not in doubt) followed by endogenously produced morphine (whose function is still in question) is appropriate". But we have a reputable source stating that morphine is a chemical messenger in plants, invertebrates, and mammals. What else is required? Did you find someone questioning this fact in the (recent) scientific literature, or is the doubt all coming from your own speculation? A5 ( talk) 03:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
What else is required?Specifics as to the function and mechanism. The quote that you mention is from Zhu & Stefano (2007) PMID 19456354 which contains a lot of self citing. Laux-Biehlmann (2013) PMID 23266549 which is more extensive and up-to-date and contains much less self-citation, is more cautious in its conclusions:
“ | Although no clear function has yet been attributed to EM [endogenous morphine] and EMM [endogenous morphine metabolites] in the CNS, their presence in specific neurons and astrocytes cannot be considered as fortuitous. | ” |
@ Boghog: thank you for your perspective, which I value. I still think your request for more specifics is a red herring, since we will never know everything there is to know. Laux / Laux-Biehlmann does not cast doubt on the chemical messenger status of morphine, and in fact supports its role as a neurotransmitter in Purkinje cells, citing himself (Laux 2011, PMID 21456021), where he mentions that morphine may be "cosecreted with other neurotransmitters in the CNS"; and Muller 2008 PMID 18327293, which states "The presence of morphine in the brain and its localization in particular areas lead us to conclude that it has a specific function in neuromodulation and/or neurotransmission". As I said - we will never know everything, which means that certain aspects of this topic will always be under debate - is it a neurotransmitter, a neuromodulator, a hormone? - but there are quite a few basic facts which seem to be undisputed in 2020. One of these facts is that morphine is a chemical messenger in mammals.
However, you do have a point about undue weight. A Google search for "morphine research" turns up not a single result in the top 100 about endogenous morphine. In fact there is even a recent article about UC San Francisco medical researchers studying "the body's 'natural opioids'", which makes it apparent that the researchers are unaware that morphine is one of them. No doubt most of the visitors to this article are looking for information about morphine as a drug, whether legal or illegal. Splitting this into two separate articles is an intriguing idea. Is there a precedent for having two articles about two different roles for the same chemical substance? I can think of certain inorganic compounds which have separate articles for the mineral form. A5 ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: Interesting. I dimly recall (sorry, no references) that the function of morphine must have something to do with regulating body temperature and digestion, and I recall some kind of connection to insulin as well. And pain, and immune function. These are its properties as a hormone, however, and I would agree with you that its function as a neurotransmitter is not so well understood. But there is still a lot of endogenous morphine research to summarize, which I think would be easier without questions of "undue weight". I would therefore support splitting the article following the other examples, into Morphine/ Morphine (medication). The main disadvantage I can think of is that there is a lot of overlap, particularly since much of what we can surmise about the effects of morphine as a hormone comes from our understanding of its effects as a medication. I need to look at Testosterone and Insulin more carefully, to see how overlap issues are resolved there. A5 ( talk) 19:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I think most of the visitors to the Insulin article are interested in Insulin (medication), so that would be a precedent for just calling endogenous morphine "Morphine", in spite of the traffic bias towards "Morphine (medication)". Anyway what about "Morphine" / "Morphine (endogenous)"? After all, we've been calling it endogenous morphine in this discussion, and that's a good search term for digging up scientific papers on the subject. Alternatively, "Morphine (medication)" / "Morphine (endogenous)". A5 ( talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The stereochemical descriptions of the intermediate enantiomers in the biosynthesis sections are presented in two different styles. I leave it to the experts to decide between the two styles (with or without parens/italics), and propagate just one for the sake of student readers. Also, the PD table mentions the dextro- and levo- forms alongside "Morphine", which here, alongside the two, implies what... activity data on the racemate? (I am not sure I believe this, but it is possible that such was formulated.) I would clarify this, and recommend 2-3 other sourced sentences, placed appropriately throughout, including in the lead, making clear the stereochemical form of what most know as morphine, the poppy- and human-derived molecule. Merci. 2601:246:C700:19D:E50A:9B38:6680:3C78 ( talk) 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
" One poor quality study on morphine overdoses among soldiers reported that the fatal dose was 0.78 mcg/ml in males (~71 mg for an average 90 kg adult man) and 0.98mcg/ml in females (~74 mg for an average 75 kg female). It was not specified whether the dose was oral, parenteral or IV "
Surely it does not matter whether the dose was oral or IV if this is referring to final blood concentration? If oral bioavailability is about 1/3 then the fatal dose would be about 225mg orally would it not? (though this seems rather low) Of course one would then also have to consider the timescale over which the dose was taken etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.113.110 ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
So the, history part has a sentence "Later it was found that morphine was more addictive than either alcohol or opium".
But not sure if this is true, or what it even means. Isn't the main ingredient of opium morphine, which should make it exactly as addictive, if not more (if the other compounds have additive effects)? Also, alcohols are extremely addictive, so without a references I find it hard to believe that morphine can be more addictive, although maybe I am wrong. Is there any reference for this? 84.248.117.35 ( talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Vem har någon erfarenhet av Levopidon? Morfius1976 ( talk) 10:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This ref [1] states "Pain perception is altered in the spinal cord and higher CNS levels" and "Opiate agonists do not alter the threshold or responsiveness of afferent nerve endings to noxious stimuli, nor peripheral nerve impulse conduction"
User:Brandmeister My understand is that one still realizes their is pain but just no longer cares. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A recent paper has demonstrated the production of morphinr through engineering the necessary biochemical pathways into yeast cells. These convert sugar into morphine. This may open the way to factory production as opposed to relying on harvested poppy. [1]
References
OK, so:
So this should not come into WP yet. Jytdog ( talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
For Onset of action the infobox has "5 min (IV), 15 min (IM),[3] 20 min (PO)[4]"
The body of the article has very little about this.
The Pharmacodynamics section has "Morphine is a rapid-acting narcotic, ..." without a citation or further elaboration. The "Medical uses" section has "Morphine is primarily used to treat both acute and chronic severe pain." though without a citation. One would think that for the treatment of acute pain that an onset of action of a few seconds would be desirable.
What I was trying to discover is more detail about the onset of action, and what happens during the first few seconds, minutes, and hours. The duration that it's effective also needs clarification. The infobox has "Biological half-life: 2–3 h" and the article has "Its duration of analgesia is about three to seven hours." -- Marc Kupper| talk 00:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Dependence and withdrawal section seems to be about addicts only, not patients. No info on long term use and cessation of therapy (tapering of dose). Prevalence ( talk) 15:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Morphine. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The section describing the salts of morphine should not include heroin. Heroin is not a salt of morphine, and calling it "morphine di-acetate" is incorrect; it is di-acetyl morphine, and it is the di-acetyl ester of morphine. The salts are ionic compounds formed when an anion (Cl-, SO42-, citrate and yes, even acetate) is bonded to the nitrogen atom. They are all essentially just water-soluble forms of morphine. All of the salts will release morphine base when a strong alkali is added to their water solutions, which will precipitate out of solution. Doing the same to a salt of heroin will release heroin base, not morphine. Adding acetic acid to morphine creates the acetate salt; there is no such thing as the di-acetate salt of morphine. To create heroin, refluxing with acetic anhydride is necessary. All of the salts are slightly less potent than morphine, because some of the weight of the administered salt is just the anion. A simple calculation (the molecular mass of the salt, divided by the molecular mass of morphine, multiplied by the desired dose of morphine, will give the weight of the morphine salt required to be administered. There is no such relationship between heroin and morphine, and in fact, heroin is more potent than morphine because it is a different chemical compound to morphine. I will revisit this page in a few weeks and will remove the statements about heroin from the section concerning the salts of morphine, unless someone can produce evidence that my assertions are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At least I try ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
We cannot use large quotes so reverted. [7] This is also though of as a medication first so we should mention that first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The pharmacokinetics in the Infobox and those in the article are wrong/inconsistent. One source for the Infobox is specifically only for the rectal route, and the other for children. Peak plasma onset for oral route (PO) is, for example, widely quoted as 30–90 minutes, not 20 (Infobox) nor 30 (text). One better source (of thousands) might be PMID 2057987, though there are probably better or at least newer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.151.83 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
No sure why the spelling was changed from British to American or the simplification in the lead was removed? [8]
Not sure what thuis means "morphine msy affect the baby"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The concern with morphine and all opioids is the window between therapeutic and over- doses. But nowhere in the article is this made apparent. We don't know what dose is overdose?! I can't find any non-animal studies. Obviously, we can't actually conduct a study, but we could know from survey and accidental overdoses, what the fatal dose is; I think we do know. And what's the minimum therapeutic dose for acute and chronic pain? Any help? Sbalfour ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The article for Dopamine opens with "Dopamine (...) is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families. It functions both as a hormone and a neurotransmitter, and plays several important roles in the brain and body."
By contrast, the opening sentence of this article has tended to prioritize the medical and commercial applications of morphine over its function in nature. Compare the following revisions:
It is apparent that the emphasis has been gradually changing, perhaps reflecting growing awareness among scientists and even medical professionals of the natural role of morphine in the human and animal body. However the current version still seems wrong to me. Why would we describe a natural signaling molecule as first and foremost a "pain medication"? And under what circumstances is it proper to emphasize the commercial and medical applications of a substance over its natural biological role? Consider the article for Human Growth Hormone, which doesn't even mention drug applications of HGH until the second paragraph. Consider the article for Water, which doesn't get into the economic significance of water until the fourth paragraph.
However, I'm wondering what is the correct description to use. Is morphine a hormone or a neurotransmitter or both (like dopamine)? Are these terms even very precise? I've found a number of scientific papers talking about the synthesis of morphine in the body, but none of them seem to adopt a terminology for describing its function. A5 ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ Boghog:. I saw those papers, but what does "homeopathic concentrations" mean? Based upon my understanding of homeopathy, I thought that meant "less than one molecule" which is why I stopped reading the paper at that point. And what do you mean by "alarm bells"? Is there a suggestion of bad faith or just that the researchers don't know what they are doing? On p. 9786 of PMID 3467337, from 1986, it describes measuring morphine concentrations of 5-25 pmol/g, which seems like 1-7 parts per billion, in the cow's brain. This corresponds to a total of several micrograms, indeed small compared to the dosage of morphine as a drug, but maybe not small given what could be expected to cross the blood-brain barrier when injected as a typical 2mg dose for humans? And for example this article describes reference HGH concentrations in humans of 5 parts per billion, which is in the same range. Here is a paper PMID 26123500 describing dopamine concentrations in the brain of 1.5 parts per billion (0.3 - 8 ppb), which is again similar. Is there some criterion for deciding whether a molecule is important in the body in this concentration? Are you suggesting that morphine only exists in the body as a metabolite of some more important molecule? What other molecules are known to activate the same receptors? Let me know if I'm reading these wrong, but the only difference I see is that morphine is much more profitable than the other molecules - which seems hardly relevant to its biological classification. A5 ( talk) 07:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
but what does "homeopathic concentrations" mean?is an excellent question which I am not sure of the answer myself. If they mean it in a literal sense, then I completely agree with you ("alarm bells" ≡ "why I stopped reading the paper"). But what I suspect they meant is very low concentrations, but still more than one molecule. Please keep in mind that the binding of morphine to its receptor is completely reversible and hence its activity is thresholded. If the level of endogenous morphine never reaches its threshold value, the receptor will not be significantly occupied and hence the endogenous morphine will have no pharmacologic effect, in which case it cannot be classified as a neurotransmitter. So the critical question is does the concentration of endogenous morphine ever get close its EC50 value (i.e, EC50/10 = 1.8 nM/10 = ~0.18 nM)? The literature that you quote is signficantly below that value. Boghog ( talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: is there a reference for this EC50 value of 1.8 nM? Thanks. A5 ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Endogenous morphinergic signaling, in concert with NO-coupled signaling systems, has evolved as an autocrine/paracrine regulator of metabolic homeostasis, energy metabolism, mitochondrial respiration and energy production. Basic physiological processes involving morphinergic/NO-coupled regulation of mitochondrial function, with special emphasis on the cardiovascular system, are critical to all organismic survival. Key to this concept may be the phenomenon of mitochondrial enslavement in eukaryotic evolution via endogenous morphine.Addendum: there are 8 review articles that cite this study.
@ Boghog: you said "Hence I believe that the order of presentation, starting with drug (whose effects are not in doubt) followed by endogenously produced morphine (whose function is still in question) is appropriate". But we have a reputable source stating that morphine is a chemical messenger in plants, invertebrates, and mammals. What else is required? Did you find someone questioning this fact in the (recent) scientific literature, or is the doubt all coming from your own speculation? A5 ( talk) 03:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
What else is required?Specifics as to the function and mechanism. The quote that you mention is from Zhu & Stefano (2007) PMID 19456354 which contains a lot of self citing. Laux-Biehlmann (2013) PMID 23266549 which is more extensive and up-to-date and contains much less self-citation, is more cautious in its conclusions:
“ | Although no clear function has yet been attributed to EM [endogenous morphine] and EMM [endogenous morphine metabolites] in the CNS, their presence in specific neurons and astrocytes cannot be considered as fortuitous. | ” |
@ Boghog: thank you for your perspective, which I value. I still think your request for more specifics is a red herring, since we will never know everything there is to know. Laux / Laux-Biehlmann does not cast doubt on the chemical messenger status of morphine, and in fact supports its role as a neurotransmitter in Purkinje cells, citing himself (Laux 2011, PMID 21456021), where he mentions that morphine may be "cosecreted with other neurotransmitters in the CNS"; and Muller 2008 PMID 18327293, which states "The presence of morphine in the brain and its localization in particular areas lead us to conclude that it has a specific function in neuromodulation and/or neurotransmission". As I said - we will never know everything, which means that certain aspects of this topic will always be under debate - is it a neurotransmitter, a neuromodulator, a hormone? - but there are quite a few basic facts which seem to be undisputed in 2020. One of these facts is that morphine is a chemical messenger in mammals.
However, you do have a point about undue weight. A Google search for "morphine research" turns up not a single result in the top 100 about endogenous morphine. In fact there is even a recent article about UC San Francisco medical researchers studying "the body's 'natural opioids'", which makes it apparent that the researchers are unaware that morphine is one of them. No doubt most of the visitors to this article are looking for information about morphine as a drug, whether legal or illegal. Splitting this into two separate articles is an intriguing idea. Is there a precedent for having two articles about two different roles for the same chemical substance? I can think of certain inorganic compounds which have separate articles for the mineral form. A5 ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: Interesting. I dimly recall (sorry, no references) that the function of morphine must have something to do with regulating body temperature and digestion, and I recall some kind of connection to insulin as well. And pain, and immune function. These are its properties as a hormone, however, and I would agree with you that its function as a neurotransmitter is not so well understood. But there is still a lot of endogenous morphine research to summarize, which I think would be easier without questions of "undue weight". I would therefore support splitting the article following the other examples, into Morphine/ Morphine (medication). The main disadvantage I can think of is that there is a lot of overlap, particularly since much of what we can surmise about the effects of morphine as a hormone comes from our understanding of its effects as a medication. I need to look at Testosterone and Insulin more carefully, to see how overlap issues are resolved there. A5 ( talk) 19:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I think most of the visitors to the Insulin article are interested in Insulin (medication), so that would be a precedent for just calling endogenous morphine "Morphine", in spite of the traffic bias towards "Morphine (medication)". Anyway what about "Morphine" / "Morphine (endogenous)"? After all, we've been calling it endogenous morphine in this discussion, and that's a good search term for digging up scientific papers on the subject. Alternatively, "Morphine (medication)" / "Morphine (endogenous)". A5 ( talk) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The stereochemical descriptions of the intermediate enantiomers in the biosynthesis sections are presented in two different styles. I leave it to the experts to decide between the two styles (with or without parens/italics), and propagate just one for the sake of student readers. Also, the PD table mentions the dextro- and levo- forms alongside "Morphine", which here, alongside the two, implies what... activity data on the racemate? (I am not sure I believe this, but it is possible that such was formulated.) I would clarify this, and recommend 2-3 other sourced sentences, placed appropriately throughout, including in the lead, making clear the stereochemical form of what most know as morphine, the poppy- and human-derived molecule. Merci. 2601:246:C700:19D:E50A:9B38:6680:3C78 ( talk) 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
" One poor quality study on morphine overdoses among soldiers reported that the fatal dose was 0.78 mcg/ml in males (~71 mg for an average 90 kg adult man) and 0.98mcg/ml in females (~74 mg for an average 75 kg female). It was not specified whether the dose was oral, parenteral or IV "
Surely it does not matter whether the dose was oral or IV if this is referring to final blood concentration? If oral bioavailability is about 1/3 then the fatal dose would be about 225mg orally would it not? (though this seems rather low) Of course one would then also have to consider the timescale over which the dose was taken etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.113.110 ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
So the, history part has a sentence "Later it was found that morphine was more addictive than either alcohol or opium".
But not sure if this is true, or what it even means. Isn't the main ingredient of opium morphine, which should make it exactly as addictive, if not more (if the other compounds have additive effects)? Also, alcohols are extremely addictive, so without a references I find it hard to believe that morphine can be more addictive, although maybe I am wrong. Is there any reference for this? 84.248.117.35 ( talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Vem har någon erfarenhet av Levopidon? Morfius1976 ( talk) 10:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)