5 ms·
> The glycerinergics are those molecules that can bind to what is known as the 'glycine binding site' of a particular subset of stimulatory receptors (NMDA), an
by samwilliams 13y ago
> The glycerinergics are those molecules that can bind to what is known as the 'glycine binding site' of a particular subset of stimulatory receptors (NMDA), and it seems that by stimulating this binding site the overall signalling is increased.
'Glycerinergics' has only one result on Google - this article. Even if we assume that they mean it in the same way as we talk about GABAergic or dopaminergic drugs the definition they have stated is fundamentally incorrect. Glycerinergic drugs would be those that bind to any of the same sites that the endogenous molecule glycine binds to - not necessarily just NMDAr sites, this is an over simplification. Further more, to say that NMDA receptors are inherently 'stimulatory' is frankly ridiculous. Ligands can be either agonists or antagonists at a given binding site - examples of non-excitatory NMDAr binding drugs would be the arylcyclohexamine family (PCP, Ketamine, PCE etc) and Dizocilpine (MK-801). Finally, 'overall signalling is increased' is almost laughable. 'Signalling' through which neurotransmitters? In what manner? How is 'overall' measured?
While I may not have an absolutely perfect understanding of psychopharmacology, I do know enough not to trust this article - particularly when it is taking about drugs with very little history of human use.
If you are considering using the drugs in this article, it might be advisable to question why. Just because a compound is new, does not mean it is going to be better or the effects more desirable than it's predecessor(s). Of course it is possible that it could be, but it seems likely that in reality you are simply exposing yourself to unnecessary health risks for minimal reward. Would it really be so bad to use Piracetam for a couple of years while the phenyl derivative's action in humans is not well documented? Consider your health and the potential gains carefully and make a rational decision.
- resu_nimda 13y agoIt looks like "glycerinergic" was a typo for "glycinergic," which has ~100k results on Google (they also mention "glycincergics" - the poor copy editing would support your distrust). But yeah, I'm not sure what's going on here. I guess it's just an announcement that they have added some info about these drugs to their database. To be fair, the article itself isn't really promoting their usage, and the subheading does describe them as "A large amount of somewhat poorly researched compounds." Perhaps there is better information on the actual pages for each substance.
- samwilliams 13y agoThe spelling mistake would make sense, but I agree that it doesn't inspire confidence. The impression I got from the article was the same as yours - they are not explicitly advocating the use of these drugs, but I don't think they were doing very much to inform the reader of the potential dangers that using any very new psychoactive compounds would entail. Perhaps the real fault here is in the manner that this has been submitted to HN, rather than the article itself? Personally, I think it would be more appropriate and safer to call the submission 'Racetams and Glycinergics of the future' or something similar. As the title currently stands the impression given is that these chemicals are appropriate for use now, by everyone.
- aaxe 13y agoThe article links to the actual listing pages, which go into full details.
- aaxe 13y agoYou do realize its talking about the neuron, not the synapse? They are quite different.
- samwilliams 13y agoI mentioned neither the neuron or the synapse explicitly. I am fully aware of the differences between the two. If you have a problem with my comments please expand and clearly state your issue. Also, I think it is pretty well accepted around here that you shouldn't reply to the same comment twice. Editing your previous comment to reflect your new thoughts would certainly have sufficed in this case.