Talk:Dopamine

message: I just went ahead and indicated the VTA projection and target neuron subpopulation that mediates drug reward under Dopamine#Reward. Idk if you're interested in updating the other parts of that section, but I figured I'd just post this here since I'm not particularly keen on updating the entire section myself. This 2014 review mentions how VTA DA neurons consists of "anatomically and functionally heterogeneous DA subpopulations with different axonal projections" and contains coverage of dopamine-mediated aversion and reward prediction errors. What the review said about distinct neuronal subpopulations/projection targets is something I've read repeatedly about the mesolimbic pathway in particular; the VTA-NAcc pathway contains (at least) 4 distinct subpopulations of projection neurons that synapse onto the D1-type or D2-type MSNs NAcc core or NAcc shell (e.g., see this table), where each of those NAcc subpopulations mediates a distinct function (as noted in the refs I used). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, that's fine with me. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  DA-mediated cognitive functions 

message: Would anybody be able to suggest good references for the chemistry and biochemistry sections?  This is textbook-level stuff, and expect the best source is some standard textbook of biochemistry -- I'm sure it won't be found in recent review articles.  Unfortunately chemistry is my weak point.  I'm reasonably confident that the material in the article is more or less correct, but we can't move to GA or FA if those sections aren't properly referenced. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're asking about structure activity relationships and/or pharmacokinetics, https://books.google.com/books?id=R0W1ErpsQpkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage is pretty comprehensive. For chemical-related data on dopamine itself, I'd suggest using pubchem's entry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for chemistry and biochemistry sections 

message: The statement "Dopamine is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families that plays several important roles in the human brain and body, as well as elsewhere in biology" seems to diminish its importance outside humans. The discussion further down the article makes it clear that it is highly conserved and very widespread: found in nearly all multicellular animals. Can we find a more nuanced way of saying this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to suggestions.  This article gets several thousand page views per day, and I would guess that 80-90% of them come from people mainly interested in the role of dopamine in reward and addiction, so we should make particularly sure the article works for those readers -- but at the same time we shouldn't give an impression that is misleading. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps change "the human brain and body" to just "brain and other nerve cells"? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: The following text was inserted into the "Reward" section by .  I am moving here because at best it needs to be discussed; at worst it does not belong.  This article is currently a nominee for Featured Article, so it needs to be kept clean while the review proceeds.
:Learning from positive and negative information
:Studies show that the pharmacological increase of dopamine levels results in a reduction of the ability to learn from negative outcomesFrank, MJ., Seeberger LC., O'reilly, RC. (2004) By carrot or by stick: cognitive reinforcement learning in parkinsonism. Science, Vol 306 (5703) PMID: 15528409 and  negative informationSharot T., Guitart-Masip M., Korn C. W.,  Chowdhury R., Dolan R.J. (2012) How Dopamine Enhances an Optimism Bias in Humans. Current Biology, Vol 22 (16) doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053 . This suggests dopamine plays a role in learning from undesirable outcomes and information.
There are several issues here.  (1) The material may be important enough to belong in the article, but it would need to be properly integrated; (2) the references need to be properly formatted (but that's easy enough), (3) the references are primary sources per WP:MEDRS -- we should look for secondary sources, i.e., review articles. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving new addition to article here for discussion 

message: Should  be modified so we can include a 3D model of the dopamine molecule here? Both  and  have spaces for 2D and 3D models. I'm thinking about this image in particular. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D molecular image 

message: I'm not very happy about this passage:   I can't see any group of readers who benefit from it.  To readers who are unfamiliar with neuroscience, it will be completely incomprehensible.  To readers who are familiar with neuroscience, the only thing in it that basic knowledge that applies to all neurotransmitters is the names of the metabolizing enzymes.  I would like to delete those sentences from the lead, but since they were added by another editor as part of the copy-editing process I don't want to do so without a chance for discussion. Looie496 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I did the bold thing, but others may want to try to rescue some of that content; I think it's best removed, though, for the reasons you gave. What remains is a good intro. — soupvector (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic passage in lead 

message: Since there are only two refs given in lead would it be better to remove them. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My general practice is to minimize references in the lead, but not to fight about it if somebody adds one or asks for one. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References in lead

message: A new review and IUPHAR both indicate that TAAR1 is a natural/endogenous target of DA along with the 5 DA receptors, so the receptor will need to be included as a target in the "Cellular effects" heading.  Given that TAAR1 a high affinity DA receptor, the diagram :File:Synapse_dopaminergique.png should probably be revised to include TAAR1 and possibly the inhibitory TAAR1-D2sh heterodimer, which signals through a unique pathway (PKB/GSK3) relative to the individual receptors(probably too technical).  That's probably the only TAAR1-related material that needs to be added for the comprehensive coverage FA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dopamine#Functions]] 

message: There is very little on this page on the role of DA and DA circuits in behavior.  Can I create a new section, should there be a new page?
Petergstrom (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The best-studied function is the role of dopamine in reward, which is covered at some length.  What kind of material would you like to add? Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, you're certainly welcome to edit the article, but if you want to add so much material that it would unbalance the presentation it should probably be done in a sub-article. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'd probably be best to cover pathway-specific effects in dopaminergic pathways. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral Biology of dopamine 

message: Since when was dopamine released by an endocrine gland?????Petergstrom (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the Nervous system section, "Dopamine produced by neurons in the arcuate nucleus is secreted into the hypophyseal portal system of the median eminence, which supplies the pituitary gland. The prolactin cells that produce prolactin, in the absence of dopamine, secrete prolactin continuously; dopamine inhibits this secretion. In the context of regulating prolactin secretion, dopamine is occasionally called prolactin-inhibiting factor, prolactin-inhibiting hormone, or prolactostatin." Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Also, see this review – Dopamine: a prolactin-inhibiting hormone – and tuberoinfundibular pathway. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prolactin inhibiting hormone" 

message: An IP editor has changed "vasodilation" to "vasoconstriction" in the lede, explaining with the following edit summary: "Fixed incorrect information: Dopamine is a vassopressor, not a vasodilator, therefore it helps treat low blood pressure in trauma by causing the blood vessels to constrict. This constriction increases vascular resistance which then causes an increase i...".  I am about to undo the change, and would like to explain why.  This issue has come up before. It's a little tricky:  the sources indicate that at normal low biological concentrations, the primary effect of dopamine in the bloodstream is vasodilation.  At the much higher concentrations attained when dopamine is injected as a drug, the primary effect becomes vasoconstriction.  These effects are covered in the body of the article, citing appropriate sources.  Consequently I am going to revert to the earlier version.  If there is some tweak to the wording that will make things clearer, I am certainly open to it. Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasoconstriction vs vasodilation, explanation of revert 

message: My compliments on the article.  It comprehensively presents a variety of technical information in a manner that is for the most part highly-readable and begins with the core facts.
One thing is conspicous by its abscence.  The production of Dopamine along with other hormones is documented in response to hypoglycaemia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Compliments on the Article 

message: Looking at the section on pathology, I was surpised to see that schizophrenia was not among the sub-headings. Vorbee (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Schizophrenia

message: A recent edit changed "basal ganglia" to "basal nuclei" at several points in this article. The edit has already been reverted, but I think the revert deserves some discussion. (To be clear, I agree with it, but I think there is value in justifying it.) In my opinion, the change to "basal nuclei" is premature. Although that term is logically preferable, it is still far less commonly used in the literature than "basal ganglia". A Google Scholar search from 2017 onward shows over 18,000 uses of "basal ganglia" but only about 800 uses of "basal nuclei", and many of the latter are referring to other things, such as the basal nuclei of the amygdala. The adoption of the term in one textbook is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification for adopting it in Wikipedia. Other opinions are of course welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Basal nuclei" 

message: Talk:Reward system#Clinical evidence of a causal link between dopamine and music-elicited pleasure - if reproducible, this would result in a paradigm shift in areas of affective neuroscience and cognitive neuropsychology. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the article with a secondary source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of regulating pleasure cognition 

message: I removed the passage: 
  "Also, other dissociative drugs, notably ketamine and phencyclidine that act on glutamate NMDA receptors (and not on dopamine receptors) can produce psychotic symptoms.[102]"
Dissociatives do act upon dopamine receptors, both directly and through opioid activity. The source cited originally [102] also backs this up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4100:6530:D18B:1695:5896:74A7 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Psychosis and antipsychotic drugs" section, passage removal 

message: Hi, just a quick note to say that the current ball-and-stick model has its upper hydroxy group missing its hydrogen.  Thanks, John
:No, it is correct - dopamine is a zwitterion in the solid state. See the reference in the image caption: Cruickshank et al., J. Mol. Struct. (2013) 1051, 132-136, which is TIRZAX in the Cambridge Structural Database. The reason dopamine forms this zwitterion is one of the hydroxy groups is so acidic that the amino group takes a proton from it. See also Talk:Adrenaline#Ball_and_stick_model and Norepinephrine for other catecholamines that are zwitterionic for the same treason. Compare them to tyramine that has both zwitterionic and non-zwitterionic forms. And to L-DOPA that is a different kind of zwitterion in which a different OH group is more acidic, the carboxylic OH. --Ben (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, would you look at my comment below your reply? I apologize in advance for my limited knowledge of chemistry. 69.70.135.194 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

text: To elaborate, a non-expert reader (like myself) might find the discrepancy confusing. 69.70.135.194 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, it is a bit complicated and confusing. I have created a new image based on the previous one but with the solution structure, consistent with the skeletal formula. The solid-state structure is mentioned in the caption. Is this better? Ben (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-D model is incorrect 

message: I can find no evidence of Barger/Ewens synthesising dopamine in the reference Jshake1 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History  

message: I'm asking for help, because I'm not a native-speaker. 
"It is an amine synthesized by removing a carboxyl group from a molecule of its precursor chemical, L-DOPA"
Thanks in advance. Retornaire (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Either seems fine - though I'd be tempted to call it a "molecular precursor" or "precursor molecule". — soupvector (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precursor chemical or chemical precursor?