Talk:N-Phenylacetyl-L-prolylglycine ethyl ester

Lack of Debate on NOOPEPT Talk Page

As of this time, the relatively blank talk page of NOOPEPT seems quite disconcerting. I think that it would be a good idea for significantly more debate to be placed upon the talk page – provided, of course, anyone knows anything new about the NOOPEPT drug. AnInformedDude (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only scientific information available apart from patents seems to be the original Russian studies (to most of which studies only abstracts are available in english). Probably because this drug has not been licensed in the US, leading one to believe that the drug is not of interest to non-russian pharmaceutical companies. This probably means that you should not expect miracles to happen any time soon, sadly. Tukotih (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Russian studies can still be cited, but complaining about it won't make it happen. Wikipedia is by and large a volunteer effort. I think the only debate that may be reasonable for this Talk page is if a study is cited but is unclear about a statement or claim. --IO Device (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"One rat study has noted that, similar to Piracetam, administration of Noopept to otherwise healthy rat pups (8-20 days of age) results in an impairment of memory formation (declarative and procedural) without influencing locomotion. BAD FOR HEALTHY BRAINS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.51.86 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

With courtesy, this talk page is intended to be for discussion regarding a wikipedia (encyclopedia) article, not a forum in which to surmise or conjecture; if the authors of the study you mentioned came to a specific conclusion, feel free to include it in the article with proper citation. WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

personal experiences

The only "research" on this compound other than the Russian studies is personal experiences from people using it as a cognitive enhancer, actually i'm using it myself but i think Wikipedia doesn't allow such things to be included as sources? Otherwise someone can write the information found out by Atomini on http://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-lounge-off-topic-discussion/523605-atominis-noopept-log.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.114.11 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The research is clearly sourced in real journals. Why is it being listed as "unreliable source" as if it were linking to some website like Natural News? -Ed

Bioavailability Source?

I've read the full text of the source for the claim of 10% blood serum concentration, compared to intravenous (Proline-containing dipeptide GVS-111 retains nootropic activity after oral administration.), and there is no reference at all to blood serum concentrations. In addition, the study compared oral administration to intraperitoneal administration (not intravenous). I cannot find a source for the 10% claim, although I've seen it made elsewhere.

mistercow (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Mr. Cow, here are the sources for the oral bioavailability.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11094-005-0050-y#page-1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10977920

And the full texts if you want to read them:

https://hotfile.com/dl/239810847/569974e/Bioaccessibility_of_the_new_dipeptide_nootropic_drug_noopept.pdf.html

https://hotfile.com/dl/239810985/dc74e87/Bioavailability_of_noopept.pdf.html

Ain't nobody got time to figure out the new Wikipedia editing, so I will leave that up to your capable hooves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.143.145 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

¿RacetaTm?

Noopept is not technically a racetam molecule (due to not having a 2-oxo-pyrollidine skeleton). http://examine.com/supplements/Noopept/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.14.73 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Product information" section

Moved here from the article for discussion. I don't think there's anything here which is WP:MEDRS and salvageable, is there?

"Product information" section, moved from the article

In Russia, Noopept is considered a nootropic drug with neuroprotective properties. It is reported to improve learning ability and memory (including the initial processing of information, consolidation, and retrieval). It is also used to prevent the development of amnesia induced by electroshock. In animal studies, Noopept helped to restore memory and other cognitive functions disturbed as a result of ischemia as well as damage due to hypoxia (a condition in which the body or region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply). The therapeutic effect of the drug in patients with disorders of the central nervous system appeared within 5-7 days of treatment. Also reported was the reduction or disappearance of anxiety, irritability, emotional lability and sleep disorders. It has also been observed to reverse and prevent learned helplessness neurosis in rats after long term (21 day) treatment. References

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding the image, I agree with it not belonging here (as opposed to User:IO Device). The last two paragraphs could probably be salvaged though. --Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if there are any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. What's above isn't. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, while I currently don't agree with MEDRS, Alexbrn is right. For a source to be MEDRS complaint, I believe it would help for it to have the words "review", "summary", "survey" or maybe "meta-analysis" in its title, or be representative of the same, thereby being a secondary source. As for the images, there was never any real disagreement about them between me and Alexbrn. The images are useful. --IO Device (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Material removed per MEDRS

I have removed a bunch of material based on primary sources, per Wikipedia's policy for sourcing of medical articles as outlined in WP:MEDRS. I'm still not really satisfied, as I see no good evidence that this drug when orally administered is anything more than a placebo, but this should at least be an improvement. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, have you tried it (the pharmaceutical drug in at least a 20 mg daily dose)? It has been studied in humans.[1][2][3] Should I just take your word for it though that it's just a placebo? Please stick to the facts, not your beliefs. --IO Device (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't use primary sources, agree with Looie496. Not sure why they're being edit-warred back in against the guidance of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but what does it DO?

Yeah, but what does it DO? 71.139.163.158 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what is meant by this, it's possible that 71.139.163.158 expects Wikipedia to always include a summary of a drugs effects or mechanism of action. -- Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the truth is that this "drug" almost certainly doesn't do anything at all, unless injected directly into the brain. It's a peptide, and peptides get broken down by the digestive system. Even if it somehow made it into the bloodstream, it probably wouldn't be able to get into the brain. This is basically a patent medicine that when ingested orally functions as a placebo. Unfortunately our article can't say that because all the sources are shit. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please watch your language on Talk pages. If you know so much, perhaps you'd be kind enough to list references indicating the claimed effect. Contrary to your assertion, there is evidence for noopept working orally.[4][5][6] --IO Device (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are from Russia, and Russian pharmacology journals are notoriously unreliable -- Russian medical journals in general, as a matter of fact; see http://www.ete-online.com/content/5/1/15. Many of the authors have blatant conflicts of interest. There are no reliable sources saying that the drug doesn't work because no western scientists have any interest in studying it. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective, it doesn't give you authority to state "doesn't do anything" or "functions as a placebo" - you don't know that. Your arrogance on this page is evident. --IO Device (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You are quite incorrect Looie496. Yes, it is a peptide but it is a dipeptide which have no trouble entering circulation intact But you're the expert. 122.57.118.175 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

vasopressn is a nootropic 7 amino acid peptide that is functional when snorted. there is also a FDA approved version that is an orally available form thus possibly noopept is unusally active snorted, with the possibility that an oral form could eb developed based on the oral vasopressin molecualar modifications of vasopressin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.99.62 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. So any comments from intelligent unbiased sources with practical experience Lengthatronic (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Intriguingly it seems to be sold out in certain mainstream areas. Or sold in very minimal quantities. I've read that it is and has been trialled to treat dementia Lengthatronic (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Upregulating HIF-1 seems to be the answer. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119829/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Current vandalism by Alexbrn

The bottom line is that Noopept has clear and concise effects, but there are no secondary sources yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't do anything, or that this data is not appropriate.

"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

WP:MEDRS doesn't say you must only use secondary sources. They are preferable but when none exist, primary sources ARE OKAY TO CITE so you cannot remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a correct description of policy. We can bring up the issue at WT:MED if you like, but you will find that your view is not supported. Looie496 (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

N.B. the IP account has been blocked. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "It is sold as a dietary supplement in the US". What about Europe?

What about European Union?

ee1518 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

nothing. If i remove the 5 year limit, there are five; all appear to be from one lab. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• still no reviews in pubmed, using all the synonyms in the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian page

Someone put a "expand from Russian page" tag. I went and looked at that page. sources there are:

• dead link to label in Russian
• dead link to a paper that looks like a primary source
• good link to a 10 year old review-like article by Sergii Yu Shtrygol in something published in the Ukraine called "Medicine and Pharmacy Gazette". meh.
• links to the US and Russian patents (not reliable in WIkipedia)
• dead link from a business newspaper. not in internet archive
• good link to business newspaper, about Pharmstandard splitting off its OTC business to Otisipharm. It doesn't mention this drug and it doesn't support the content it is used for in the Russian WP page.
• PMID 9195198, a primary source. not useful
• this review article from 2007, published in the Russian Medical Journal, which per its [ about page], is free, and send to doctors offices and distributed at trade shows. Appears to be kind of trade-raggy, and this study of drug advertising in Russian journals doesn't speak highly of it.

So we have bad sources, mostly unreliable and old. I am removing the "expand from the Russian article" tag. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why can't some people read?

In the pharmacology section, it states that "Omberacetam modulates the acetylcholine system as well as the AMPA receptors." The reference given is this paper, which states explicitly and clearly: "The drug action is based on the antioxidant effect, the antiinflammatory action, and the ability to inhibit the neurotoxicity of excess calcium and glutamate, and to improve the blood rheology". No mention of acetylcholine or AMPA receptors.

We then have a much later paper published by the same author, which states that Noopept worksd primarily by stimulating the expression of BDNF: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19240853/. To quote Ostovskraia et. al.: "In the hippocampus, expression of mRNA for both neurotrophins increased after acute administration of Noopept. Chronic treatment with Noopept was not followed by the development of tolerance, but even potentiated the neurotrophic effect. These changes probably play a role in neuronal restoration. We showed that the nootropic drug increases expression of neurotrophic factors in the hippocampus. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that neurotrophin synthesis in the hippocampus determines cognitive function, particularly in consolidation and delayed memory retrieval." I'll simplify it: chronic Noopept boosts BDNF expression, increasing neuronal growth and maintenance, thereby enhancing cognition.

When I poistd this earlier, the entire section was removed. Worrying to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the edsums left by editers explaining this very thing? It's worrying that you didn't. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello online warriors, did any one of you actually consider that there may be some byproducts or some reaction in the oral cavity from which small portion can be absorbed into the blood stream? Since miligram doses applied to oral cavity can have some calming effect that lasts days compared to the 60-minute half-life, there is likely some anti-imflammatory action, similar to mometasone in 50ug dose. Posting a 1970 study of stomach/intestine function is not relevant here, as we are talking about very small amounts. And consider this: tongue has a very large surface area that absorbs molecules large and small, to provide analysis of the taste, and even if the molecule were not transported further, it would still come into contact with white blood cells. In short: I think that picking up fight over the specific route of absorption is silly. Remember the doping scandal where the men and women just flushed their mouth with the steroid cocktail? And it worked about as well as an injection, but without raising the levels in the blood. Thus, the 1970's edsums are pointless here. Also: aspartame exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

study: "Noopept modulates persistent inflammation by effecting spinal microglia dependent BDNF and pro-BDNF expression throughout apoptotic process "

I'm leaving this link here for further reading for those who need it.

Heliyon, 2021 Feb 12;7(2):e06219.

doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06219. eCollection 2021 Feb.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33644478/
It seems like we are 30-40 years before any serious human study and introduction to more normal markets. This looks like the phase of collecting elementary data of the mechanism of action and possible applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS so of no use. Incidentally, the alert is being sounded on PubPeer about this paper. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that concerns are in order, but: modern image compression methods work by recycling content and cause exactly the same artifacts you see in the picture of the supplemental figure 4, so unless you can see the original, no point in fishing. Xerox company had been identified as the main perpetrator of creating false artifacts in the past in PDF documents, where it literally changed the "scanned" text to something the AI had seen in the text before, and replaced it with objects scanned previously. It was a big, big affair back then, but software correction was announced to "remove" this effect. Sadly, it only lessened the evil. As for the histology: I can see the slide mixups now, one slide repeats three times there, that's bad! Can someone contact the authors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Such investigations are really outside the scope of Wikipedia editing, but Elizabeth Bik[7] knows what she is doing, and all about compression artefacts. Most browsers have a PubPeer addon which will annotate article references where queries exist - occassionally it's useful. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

HIF-1 action

I hope there are more alerts on these as well?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119829/
and the previous from 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27099787/
...have all the mice and rats died for nothing...? Or does 'someone' feel threatened by a compound that is cheap and nearly unpatentable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "threatened" refers to, but sources need to be WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDANIMAL applies. Anything neurological from Russia is automatically of suspect reliability, in addition. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a talk page, where we are fishing for any clues, to possibly find points of more relevant or better quality research. The 'unreliable' source led me to 'still not very trustworthy looking source' of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30140255/, discussing similar, but by using the terms used there I can clearly see a higher level magazine here https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04388?origin=ppub -but not the exact same compounds, however.

I'm startng to think that ethyl-esterification leads to the unexpected effect at low concentrations. And after further hour of searching I found some that confirms the HIF-1 alpha explanation is possible, and it lists similar compounds doing the same https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095692
I'm not saying the russian source needs to be included, that is why I put it to the talk section, as worth having a glance over. In the general unavailability of better studies, it is better than anectodal reports. While not encyclopedic quality isn't available, I want to know if a claim is completely outlandish or feasible. Older DOI 10.1074/jbc.M508718200 suggests that HIF-prolyl hydroxylaze has two regulation pathways, one is oxygen mediated, the other is reversible inactivation. I can't find specific information as to if or how much noopept complexes iron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.20.232 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You need an appropriate forum for such discussions; this page is really for discussing how the article might be improved, and for that we would need reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)