Talk:Botulinum toxin

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 13 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristinaMcLean, Emily E Dixon, Heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wyattlillie. Peer reviewers: ATran34614.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Sorry, but there is a chembox problem as the chemical for botox isn't verified yet, how do i verify them? (~~mahamed90~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahamed90 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Poison or medication?

This article treats the botulinum toxin more as the medication Botox(tm) than possibly the most lethal poison on earth. I suggest replacing/extending the info box with toxicity information and classification from the toxic point of view. I would also restructure the article, moving the chapters regarding toxicity and working mechanism more to the top. Chapters 'therapeutic research' and 'manufacturers' should be moved into 'medical uses' and below 'Biochemical mechanism of toxicity'. Misiu mp (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Permanent paralysis?

The article does not state whether the paralysis is temporary or permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.229 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Of what I understand the damage to synapses is permanent. Recovery is made through creation of new neural connections, which is a rather long process. Misiu mp (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cooking?

According to the article,

The toxin itself is rapidly destroyed by heat, such as in thorough cooking.[14] However, the spores which produce the toxin are heat-tolerant and will survive boiling at 100 degrees Celsius for an extended period of time.

So, that begs the question: how does one canning food, etc., be assured that it is safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.178.131 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can food at standard pressure using a boiling water bath (therefore, 100 degrees C), the pH of the food must be low enough to prevent botulinum growth, because the temperature alone isn't high enough to kill the spores. For fruit, the pH is naturally low enough. Vegetables must be either acidified/pickled, or else they must be canned using pressure to attain higher temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.15.204 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The C. botulinum spores are killed in the canning process because increased pressure is applied, allowing boiling to occur at a higher temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only the last big epidemy in Sweden was caused by canned ham which was not prepared with a small dose of nitrite (very small) and C. botulinum had survived canning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.237.2 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the spores which produce the toxin.... Spores do not produce toxins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.100.145 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting the spores will not 'hatch' in an oxygen environment. So boiling will destroy the toxin, and the spores remaining are harmless unless allowed to 'hatch'. Jokem (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I just addressed this in the article. --Saaga (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to sausage comment

Hi. I would suggest you look into the history of this naming convention. It has nothing to do with the shape but rather to do with the fact that the initial outbreaks which were in the region of Germany, not Belgium were linked to the blood sausages which were quite popular at the time. The clinical description of the disease was first done by Justinus Kerner. I recommend reading "Historical notes on botulism, Clostridium botulinum, botulinum toxin, and the idea of the therapeutic use of the toxin" by Frank J. Erbguth, Movement Disorders vol 19 issue S8.

Growing in sausages/meat vs. sausage-shaped

There is a dispute about why this bacterium is called botulinum. I have moved the part of article recently added by User: 86.150.47.14 to here.

"The author of this page continually revises any alterations that I make. This is his/her right to do so, of course, but I am disappointed by his/her dogmatism. Much of the above paragraph is nothing more than opinion, and is not referenced anywhere. Perhaps, with this introduction, s/he will permit my alternative to stand? The name of the bacterium is Clostridium botulinum. Literally: the sausage clostridium. While it is true that the bacterium has been isolated from poorly preserved meat products, the first recorded example of this was in the late 19th century from ham served at a street party in Belgium; not Canadian ham; not sausages. Also, in recent years, cases have been reported in the medical press of clinical botulism caused by imperfectly preserved yoghourt, green beans, mushrooms, and even from native honey. The point is, the bacterium needs a suitable source of food, and an anaerobic atmosphere in which to grow: it does not exclusively require 'meaty' media. In the early days of bacteriology, naming bacterial species was tricky. They had no chemical techniques for serotyping, so bacteria were often described by visible physical characteristics. An example would be Staphylococcus aureus (lit: golden bunch of grapes) or Staph. albus (white bunch of grapes). The 'bunch of grapes' bit refers to the fact that these cocci clump together, and when viewed under the microscope, vaguely resemble that fruit. Ultimately, these two species were distinguished by the different colours of the colonies of billions of bacteria when grown in culture. Aureus = bright yellow; albus = white. I suggest (for about the tenth time) that the name for C. botulinum actually derives from the rod-shape of the Clostridium bacterium. Viewed under the microscope these bacteria appear like tiny, curved rods - not unlike little sausages - hence Clostridium botulinum: the Clostridium that looks like a sausage."

Would somebody who knows more about this than me (nothing) please help clear this up. Thanks.Mmoneypenny 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E.Van Ermengem discovered the organism Cl. botulinum in 1895 after 34 Belgian citizens had become ill following the ingestion of salted ham, true, (Atlas of Cosmetic Surgery, p291, published by Saunders 2002) but the disease had been recognised well prior to this. An outbreak in 1793 in Wildebad, Germany was associated with the eating of contaminated sausages and it was at this time the clinical disease was called botulism, although it was also called Kerner's disease for a time after the health official who compiled the reports of this particular outbreak.

Basic undergraduate microbiology teaches the classification of bacteria into four categories according to staining characteristics (Gram positive or Gram negative) and organism shape (coccus, or round-shaped, and bacillus, or rod-shaped). Hence, lots of different bacteria are rod-shaped and thus plausibly sausage-shaped: e.g. corynebacteria (diphtheria), actinomyces, bacillus anthracis (anthrax), listeria, and of course the clostridia, all rod-shaped, of which there are over 60 species including Cl. botulinum.

So, aside from the historic reality that this disease botulism was named well before the organism was identified, it would in any case not have made sense to identify a species of clostridium using a morphological descriptor that is in fact more generic than the genus, since all clostridia and a great number of other bacteria are, if you like, sausage-shaped. Of course, if the gratuitous observation can be forgiven, those of a Freudian bent might think of another way to allude to a rod-shaped structure. So, Mmoneypenny, congratulations on your lateral thinking, but in this case: "no cigar".Drpeachy (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oral poisoning and digestion

What is the oral LD₅₀? I would think that most of the toxin would be destroyed by proteinases in the stomach if swallowed. Icek 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins. Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract. I'm going to edit this article with footnotes when I get some time. God forbid that an incident occur and the news media use this page the way it is.Jdnicholson 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)jdnicholson

Thanks for the answer. I just discovered that the German article also says that there are protective proteins which prevent digestion in the stomach and further states that the complex of the toxin proper and the protective proteins dissociates at neutral pH. Icek 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why grouped under Chemical Warfare?

What's the point in putting that huge "Chemical Warfare" banner at the top of the page? Based on the contents of the article, it seems like it's never actually been developed into a mass-destruction weapon. Chlorine, for example, has no such banner, even though it has been and is much more likely to be used as such. Potential use as a weapon seems to me to be of little importance relative to the other aspects of the toxin presented in the article. Anon, Fri Jun 8 14:25:15 EDT 2007

I would have to agree with that - there is no use at all for the botulinum toxin as a part of WMD. If you let the solvent go into the bottle too quickly, it denatures the botulinum protein - it is very delicate. The clostridium bacterium, on the other hand, would and does kill people, but only as the result of contamination of food, and it is entirely unsuitable for warfare. The "tests" in Manchuria were using the bacterium, not the purified extract of toxin. docboat 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. It might belong in the category, but it certainly doesn't need the chemical warfare template. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The US and UK experimented with botulinus toxin, with the biological (not chemical) agent designation X, but found it not generally viable as a weapon. There were tests at Horn Island in the Gulf of Mexico. It remained of interest for clandestine use; IIRC, it was considered for assassinating Castro by the CIA. Hcberkowitz 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was -- see Botulinum_toxin#Chemical_warfare and also The_Cuban_Project#Planning. As for the article itself -- any objections at all to me pulling the chemical warfare vert infobox? --Iknowyourider (t c) 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is true, but I was told that this is the stuff Saddam used on the Kurdish people before the first Gulf war.

Apparently botulinum toxin was produced at fort detrick during the second world war after a request by the british. ... come to think of it I should check to see if that's in the article. cyclosarin 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think China tried to develop aerosolized botulinum weapons, hence the US Army's development of the antitoxin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Botulinum has a rich military history. The United States tried for nearly 30 years to weaponize it. If it were not for Ed Shantz and others at then Camp Detrick, we would not know very much about this toxin. The first medical use of BoTox was credited to research efforts by the US Army and Dr. Shantz's willingness to share samples of the toxin with nonmilitary researchers. Nonetheless, I agree that today it is far more of a medical topic than a biological (or chemical) warfare topic. —Reid Kirby 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you check out a youtube video -"top ten deadliest poisons know to humanity" This actually comes up as number one. One tablespoon of the stuff has the potential to kill millions of people if allowed to spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.219.6 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see that banner on top again...but selling poison was the best business ever since, right? (Btw I don't know how many Botox marketing guys are posting here, probably a lot) --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to archive some of these entries

This talk page is rather long. I think some of the discussions need to be archived. I read through WP:ARCHIVE; however, I didn't see any standard criteria for determining what to archive. Discussions that haven't been active for a year or more, maybe? Please give thoughts. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to take care of this myself. Right now.--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done!--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Different Types of Botox

I think that this article may benefit from a section discussing the different types of Botox (A vs B) and the efficacy of each. Wiki emma johnson (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancies/errors in article

The second sentence in the article states:

"It is the most toxic protein known[1][2] with an LD50 of roughly 0.005-0.05 µg/kg."

The second paragraph under "Chemical overview and lethality" states:

"It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg (intravenously)[9] meaning one teaspoon can kill 1.2 billion people."

My first point: LD50 means median lethal dose. So, which is correct: 1ng/kg or 5-50 ng/kg? Is the first reference to oral dose?

My second point: (If my calculations are correct) One teaspoon of toxin is about 5cc, which is somewhere near 5g. Divide that by 1.2 billion people and you get about 4 ng per person. Which would achieve the ld50 of a 4 kg newborn. So, it seems that means that if 1.2 billion 4 kg infants were injected with equal shares of a teaspoon of toxin, half of them would die, assuming ld50 of 1 ng/kg. I would think that the average adult would be 70-80 kg.

Timalleman (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any such analogies ("Four pounds could kill every human on the planet . . .") are both noninformative and downright silly. These are inflammatory "gee-whiz" comments, and do not help to educate or to inform. It's simpler to just not include them, and stick to the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk • contribs)

Molecular Complexity

I don't know where else to ask this, so this seemed best suited. Discounting chained alloys and related molecules for example; is Botulinum Toxin among the most complex indivisible molecules? That is, a molecule that, if it were to be spliced in any manner, would no longer contain the properties of the molecule as a whole. DNA would obviously not count in this manner, as resequencing would merit an acceptable chromosome configuration, albeit applicable to a different "organism" blueprint.

What are some of the most complex indivisible organic molecules?-TAz69x (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantage for the bacterium?

Jdnicholson wrote, s.v. "Oral poisoning and digestion,"

BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins. Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract.

These references to apparent engineering and design raise the question of what benefit the toxin actually provides to the bacterium itself. Is it this bug's ordinary life cycle to kill its hosts with the toxin, grow by feeding on the cadaver, sporulate when the acidity gets too high or the body disintegrates enough to admit oxygen, and remain as spores until ingested again? If so, this bacterium is an outright predator. What is its ordinary prey? Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This page looks horrible right now, with ref tags and vandalism in some places. Please clean it up--68.193.135.139 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement in intro

OK, I (neurologist) thought I'd start to deal with this. First para: "Despite the toxicity of some of the strains, humans are immune to others, and hence these can be used in small doses to treat muscle spasms" This statement makes no sense: If humans were immune to "some strains", the treatment with these wouldn't work. Humans are *not* immune to "some strains" of botulinum toxin and the citation (link to a commercial website) does not relate to this claim at all. It seems someone else will have to take over cleaning this mess up (the section on medical applications in particular is bad), since it's no use trying to improve an article only to see the edits taken off again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.161.90 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I, too, was confused this statement when I first read this article, however I am not an expert on the subject. Please do not be discouraged by the reversion of your edits, sometimes some editors get overly zealous. I can only speak for myself, but I think Wikipedia can only profit from editors who are experts or professionals in some field. However, edits from users without an account are often treated with some scepticism because I can tell you from experience that about 80% of those are vandalism, and most of the remaining 20% are not very qualified. In your case, neither was the case, so I would appreciate it very much if you did not leave the project but create an account and continue to help improve the project and especially this article.

The sentence you criticised does in fact cite a commercial website which does not even back the statement, so I removed it and added . Maybe that is a good starting point for fixing the statement. Sometimes Wikipedia can be quite bureaucratic ;-)

— Shinryuu (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this: at current, the section on Muscle Spasms is terrifically under-developed, awkward, etc. "The acceptance of BTX-A use for the treatment of muscle pain disorders is growing, with approvals pending in many European countries and studies on headaches (including migraine), pro static symptoms, asthma, obesity and many other possible indications are ongoing. Problem in writing etc." I'm going to go ahead and clean it up, a bit, but it's basically a stub, right now. It should be expanded or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.167.41 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian? Really?

Why is Kim Kardashian--a no-talent, reality show nobody, the worst type of modern-day "celebrity"--mentioned in a scientific article like this one? Lots of celebrities could be named, but there is no need to name any of them, LEAST of all a reality "star." Her name should be removed. Reality "stars" are jokes. It degrades the dignity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.227.63 (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree on keeping celebrities out of scientific articles, this one looks currently more like a commercial article. Also, flaming like that degrades the dignity too. Misiu mp (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A better celebrity to write about would definitely be the UK's Anne Robinson. The changes it made to her were phenomenal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.81.71 (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference

This reference is not openly verifiable because it requires a membership/log in [1]

Naumann M, So Y, Argoff CE, et al. (May 2008). "Assessment: Botulinum neurotoxin in the treatment of autonomic disorders and pain (an evidence-based
review): report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology". Neurology 70 (19): 1707–14.
doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000311390.87642.d8. PMID 18458231. http://www.neurology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18458231.

Attys (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The referenced source is verifiable. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require that sources be free to be considered valid. See WP:SOURCEACCESS.

El piel (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LD50 botulinum D

I found contradicting sources about the ld50 of botulinum D elsewhere on wikipedia. Went out to look at the source, but the numbers are no where to be found, so I added a "citation needed" tag. Ogtfo (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For control of muscle spasms (truth)

Hi, I didnt know where else to place this statement besides wiki, and I just wanted to share with anyone who cares that this is not just a toxin, but can be used as a medication.

Over a year ago I recieved a spinal tap (LP) that did much neurological damage as well as disc irritation and required a blood patch, very horrible, after this I began having muscle spasms that did last for 13 months. I feel its important to also inform you that I was/still currently AM serving in the United States Navy and this did serious damage to my potential career in the military which is coming to a graceful close. My peers and superiors had no idea of the horrendous pain I went through for those 13 months and the severe depression that I went through and am still going through, I am only 21 years old but went from energetic and lively to crippled and lethargic, literally overnight. I feel its also important to annotate that the spinal tap was during the first week of April (yes the devil's month) but the months before that I had been suffering from sickness after sickness and was diagnosed with Mono in mid March of that year. Following the LP the muscle spasms took control of my life and my career and I began to be unable to serve and was scrutinized and preparing myself for possible separation. I went through medical tests, and blood tests, MRI's, physical exams, pain management, and was on benzo's for atleast 10 months out of those 13. In may of the following year I became completely detached from reality due to severe chronic pain, it was everyday and didnt go away. Ever. Chronic pain changes the way your brain works, and even the chemicals it releases (or doesnt release) and I fell into a deep depression, one in which I dont even fully remember that day at all or what I said to someone in the smoke pit, but it was perceived as 'suicidal' and I was rushed to medical for an evaluation and was given a mental health evaluation that same day.

Mental health gave me a consult to see a neurologist in the Naval Hospital right next door. The following week I met a neurologist who was very verrry adamant in helping me overcome this pain and depression. During the same visit, I began to have one of the worst back spasms of my entire life right there infront of him, I had my shirt removed and I was laying on my stomach and he stood over me and told me about how my back muscles were contorting and twisting and shaking, it was a very painful experience for anyone who has never experienced SEVERE muscle spasms. He literally said "Your back was lighting up like a Christmas tree". He decided that he would NOT wait until a follow up appointment and asked me if I wanted to try a Botox treatment in my back muscles, like any other American that had heard about Botox, I was confused. Of course we have all seen and or heard about it on TV and the celebrities and whatnot, but it is actually used to treat muscle spasms. I was initially reluctant because in my mind, this pain and spasticity had all started after the LP, which is essentially getting a needle stuck in your back, it didnt make sense for me to solve the problem of getting a needle stuck in my back by getting more needles in my back. But about 15 seconds into the spasm I decided, I WILL TAKE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. Because thats how pain works, your brain says "get rid of this right now". I stand here today (yes I can stand now, all by myself and pain free) still a Sailor because 5 days after those injections, I felt some things I had not felt in quite some time. For 1 Genuine HAPPINESS! And the satisfaction and gratitude for my own life. 2 a pain free existance.

Later it was found out that I have a very rare type of auto-immune disease known as "Stiff Person Syndrome" (yes that is the real name of it). I was a textbook case, and Im still going through some of the mid stages of it....at 21 years old... but most of the pain is gone and has not returned, the thing is this is supposed to only last for 3-4 months but Im loving every minute of my life right now, I know this was long winded but thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.9.119.87 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed very insteresting, thanks for sharing. Did you try a therapy with eating and applying capsaicin before your botox therapy? Just a note: There are usually - if not always - several solutions for the same problem. --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this an Allergan commercial for Botox?

Botox is a TRADE NAME and wikipedia should not be listing one trade name without listing others. An encyclopedia article should refer to a substance by its common name and not one company's trade name. I have updated the last sentence in the first paragraph to represent all 4 commercial forms of the toxin.

Please update this article in other sections so it is not promoting one company's trade name. All 4 botulinum toxins (type A and B) are approved for use in cervical dystonia and all 3 "type A" are used for cosmetic purposes.

See: http://www.bcbsms.com/com/bcbsms/apps/PolicySearch/views/ViewPolicy.php?&noprint=yes&path=/policy/emed/BotulinumToxin.html Jim Perry, Lewes, Delaware (Jim892) (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Under which supervision operates Allergan Inc.?

Since botox is the most dangerous and toxic compound on earth I'd like to know which agency supervises the production of Botox, and which laws do apply. It should be treated the same as any other production of chemical weapons. --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious - most acutely toxic substance

The polonium article seems to indicate that 50 nanograms is enough to kill the average adult, while the this article lists botulinum's toxicity as 1.3-2.1 nanogram/kg, which would presumably be anywhere from 50-200 grams for typical adults.

I think this is close enough to call the "most" into question.

Attys (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your maths is incorrect by orders of magnitude. The two poisons are very close in LD50.

Why not edit to say "is among the most toxic substances known"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.198.150 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Being a source of ionising radiation such as polonium should not (in my opinion) even be classified as 'toxicity' in the same sense as botulinum because most (by quantity) of the harmful effects are as a result of the ionising radiation increasing the chance of their occurrence rather than actually being the cause of the occurrence, meaning that for an accurate comparison the LD⁵⁰ of polonium required must be at the level where it causes death within the same time scale as the action of the botulinum toxin lethal dosage rather than a comparison where the polonium would require a much longer maximum 30-50 days of radioactive decay within the body beforehand, especially when considering the possibility of treatment, such as chelating agents and botulinum antitoxins for polonium and botulinum toxins respectively. 202.89.189.7 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Could also say "is the most acutely lethal toxin known" as Polonium is not a toxin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.9.158 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seems ok, this is true, but also before the modification (except for radioactive) and this edit seemed unnecessary. comp.arch (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Split out botulinum treatment

I find this article trips over itself jumping between information about botulinum itself and botulinum as a therapeutic agent. We end up with an article where it's hard to even find a statement of the medical presentation of botulism poisoning.

The first occurrence of the string "symptom" is found in the following sentence:

Since then, several randomized control trials have shown botulinum toxin type A to improve headache symptoms and quality of life when used prophylactically for patients with chronic migraine who exhibit headache characteristics consistent with: pressure perceived from outside source, shorter total duration of chronic migraines (<30 years), "detoxification" of patients with coexisting chronic daily headache due to medication overuse, and no current history of other preventive headache medications.

As an added benefit, the talk page discussion about whether Kim K. warrants mention could transpire on a completely different talk page, where chemists fear to tread. — MaxEnt 23:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The following book citation moved here

… because it is redundant to a full, verifiable, high quality source (Curr Op Pharmacol) already appearing, in supporting a very general opening statement, and because it is unverifiable as it appears, for missing citation fields (page numbers, et al.).

Kukreja R, Singh BR (2009). "Botulinum Neurotoxins: Structure and Mechanism of Action". Microbial Toxins: Current Research and Future Trends. Caister Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-904455-44-8.

It is further incomplete in not listing the books editor (Thomas Proft, of the University of Auckland, New Zealand), and may prove to be lower quality source. Its appearance as an incomplete source inserted to support the lede opening sentence makes it suspicious, and I suggest it should be returned to the end of that sentence only after it is verified, and found necessary. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced statement minimizing risk removed to Talk

The following statement appeared without a citation:

• "At the extremely low doses used medicinally, botulinum toxin has a very low degree of human and animal toxicity."

It is removed until the editor providing it can provide a substantive, respected, up-to-date source that says precisely this. Not the Baylor dermatology pages, or other web sources, please. It is unconscionable to indicate a Black Box warning label, then to throw in such obfuscating unsourced information as this. Yes, the truth of the situation is subtle. All the more reason to state it accurately. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just cannot leave this one in either, without a better source than a web page, to lead a section ending with reports of deaths and black box warning (ref markup removed):

• "Side effects, which are minor and temporary,[ ref name=bcm ]

Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's another that cannot stay, for lack of referencing, and of insufficient statistical power to draw any therapeutic conlusion whatsoever (!):

• " While no data exists on the medical use of botulin A (botulinum toxin) during breastfeeding, one infant was safely breastfed during maternal botulism and no botulinum toxin was detectable in the mother's milk or infant."

Unbelievable. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is one moved here because it is WP:OR, and conflicts with the opening statement (which says pregnant and lactating individuals should consult their physicians). We can't have it both ways, suggesting only the experts should dispense medical advice, then trying to sneak an opinion in now and again:

• "the National Library of Medicine LactMed Drugs and Lactation Database suggests that no special precautions are required" [ ref name="test" ] Botulin A – National Library of Medicine LactMed Database ], preceded by "Since the doses used medically are far lower than those that cause botulism,"

The wording "suggests" makes this OR, and it has to be made into a quote (to say what it says, not interpret what it might say/suggest) or it can be omitted, which I leave to the editors most trained to decide. (The "Since…" preface is also problematic, because it is unclear what the source is saying, versus what the editor is interpreting.) If the source is the authority, clearly—if "The NLM LMDLD highlights that dosing is far below levels of toxin required too cause botulism and concludes that no precautions are required for lactating mothers, citing…"—then this needs to be said, and the authority, not a database, needs to be cited here. This should be clear with regard to medical information offered to pregnant and lactating patients.

Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Botulinum toxin --why content has been removed

hello, I added content on this page but WAS removed , I did not understood the reason please let me know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainsuchita7 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Page Organization

Hi all! I think the organization of this page is a bit odd. Currently the headings are:

1. Uses
2. Adverse Effects
3. Mechanism of Action
4. History
5. Society and Culture
6. Research

So we talk about how it's used and what can go wrong before any section on what botulinum toxin actually is. I'd propose instead we change it to:

1. Structure
2. Mechanism
3. Uses
4. Adverse Effects (though maybe this could go under "uses")
5. History
6. Society and Culture
7. Research

Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

For background/similar articles, see Tetanus toxin and Pertussis toxin. Or the fairly busy article Hemoglobin.Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to uses section

Hi folks! I went through the uses section in an effort to make it readable prose rather than a list. In general, I tried to remove primary refs that weren't necessary, clarify jargon which would be incomprehensible to readers without M.D.s, and reorganize a bit so the section reads a bit more smoothly.

Also I removed "chronic migraine" from the list of treatable conditions since one of the refs specifically does not recommend botulinum toxin for treatment of migraine (here).

I also merged the short pediatric section into the rest.

The section could still use a reference update (it looks like it was written around 2005, and all the refs are from around then. I replaced a couple where I stumbled upon more recent ones. The section looks a lot shorter, but I think you'll find all the info is still there. If anyone objects, i'd be happy to talk about it! Ajpolino (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

California canning industry comment

"The California canning industry was thereby preserved" - I see what you did there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.197.109.5 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That comment was an a-Mason stroke of genius.--70.123.9.45 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botulinum toxin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626185759/http://agn.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=587234 to http://agn.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=587234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry

Hi, I don't think that there is enough biochemistry in this article. Specifically, facts/data. I've taken a couple of minutes and done a bit of data analysis on the Bot A protein (from https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00083). I think it would be useful to add a paragraph with some of the facts about the chemistry. The primary structure is found in the above mentioned page, and since it has 1274 amino acids, I'll include it at the end of this post, although I doubt if it would be useful here. Of course, the "factual" data when considering proteins isn't as universal as, say, the data for methane or benzene which have definite chemical compositions and shapes. (see secondary and tertiary protein structure, see also mutation (since it's likely (I don't know the specifics here) that one or more of the amino acids vary from Bot A to Bot A source, which makes Bot A toxin a family of closely related chemical sequences (and then there's 2° & 3° structure...). First MW is given in the box for "Bontoxilysin" but NOWHERE in the article is the relationship between Botox A and this compound referred to nor explained - sad and sloppy. The above reference claims ave. MW is 149322.7 Da (I don't know anyone who routinely uses g/mol for proteins anymore...) Here's the breakdown of the AA distribution: Alanine (A) 51; Arginine (R) 42; Asparagine (N) 137; Aspartic Acid (D) 78; Cysteine (C) 9; Glutamic Acid (E) 74; Glutamine (Q) 39; Glycine (G) 59; Histidine (H) 12; Isoleucine (I) 118; Leucine (L) 111; Lysine (K) 101; Methionine (M) 22; Phenylalanine (F) 70; Proline (P) 37; Serine (S) 83; Threonine (T) 71; Tryptophan (W) 15; Tyrosine (Y) 74; Valine (V) 71; (letters in parentheses are a standard code for the respective AA). There's other important information, for instance, what the "pocket" (pockets?) looks like for the enzymatic activity, (what the nerve binding zone looks like), typical residence time, metabolic degradation pathway(s), etc.)
Below (using the code I provided above) is the 1274 amino acids in sequence order. MPFVNKQFNYKDPVNGVDIAYIKIPNVGQMQPVKAFKIHNKIWVIPERDTFTNPEEGDLN PPPEAKQVPVSYYDSTYLSTDNEKDNYLKGVTKLFERIYSTDLGRMLLTSIVRGIPFWGG STIDTELKVIDTNCINVIQPDGSYRSEELNLVIIGPSADIIQFECKSFGHEVLNLTRNGY GSTQYIRFSPDFTFGFEESLEVDTNPLLGAGKFATDPAVTLAHELIHAGHRLYGIAINPN RVFKVNTNAYYEMSGLEVSFEELRTFGGHDAKFIDSLQENEFRLYYYNKFKDIASTLNKA KSIVGTTASLQYMKNVFKEKYLLSEDTSGKFSVDKLKFDKLYKMLTEIYTEDNFVKFFKV LNRKTYLNFDKAVFKINIVPKVNYTIYDGFNLRNTNLAANFNGQNTEINNMNFTKLKNFT GLFEFYKLLCVRGIITSKTKSLDKGYNKALNDLCIKVNNWDLFFSPSEDNFTNDLNKGEE ITSDTNIEAAEENISLDLIQQYYLTFNFDNEPENISIENLSSDIIGQLELMPNIERFPNG KKYELDKYTMFHYLRAQEFEHGKSRIALTNSVNEALLNPSRVYTFFSSDYVKKVNKATEA AMFLGWVEQLVYDFTDETSEVSTTDKIADITIIIPYIGPALNIGNMLYKDDFVGALIFSG AVILLEFIPEIAIPVLGTFALVSYIANKVLTVQTIDNALSKRNEKWDEVYKYIVTNWLAK VNTQIDLIRKKMKEALENQAEATKAIINYQYNQYTEEEKNNINFNIDDLSSKLNESINKA MININKFLNQCSVSYLMNSMIPYGVKRLEDFDASLKDALLKYIYDNRGTLIGQVDRLKDK VNNTLSTDIPFQLSKYVDNQRLLSTFTEYIKNIINTSILNLRYESNHLIDLSRYASKINI GSKVNFDPIDKNQIQLFNLESSKIEVILKNAIVYNSMYENFSTSFWIRIPKYFNSISLNN EYTIINCMENNSGWKVSLNYGEIIWTLQDTQEIKQRVVFKYSQMINISDYINRWIFVTIT NNRLNNSKIYINGRLIDQKPISNLGNIHASNNIMFKLDGCRDTHRYIWIKYFNLFDKELN EKEIKDLYDNQSNSGILKDFWGDYLQYDKPYYMLNLYDPNKYVDVNNVGIRGYMYLKGPR GSVMTTNIYLNSSLYRGTKFIIKKYASGNKDNIVRNNDRVYINVVVKNKEYRLATNASQA GVEKILSALEIPDVGNLSQVVVMKSKNDQGITNKCKMNLQDNNGNDIGFIGFHQFNNIAK LVASNWYNRQIERSSRTLGCSWEFIPVDDGWGERPL again, this is all available on the page I referenced at the start.(as of 10/31/2017). note: the article claims that the above consists of two primary chains, so the above is (part of) the 2° structure. I don't know where the sequence breaks. 71.31.144.146 (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NFPA 704

Can someone please add an NFPA 704 diamond (if allowed)? ScRiptED (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fonterra Botulism Scandal

The section "History" should have the infamous Fonterra Botulism Scandal. Seeker220 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Improper link to research paper

Hi, I've removed a sentence about Botulinum toxin as a treatment for depression as it was referenced to a website, botoxresearch.org; I cannot find any sign of a reputable organisation using this website name (by Googling) and the entire site is a copy of an article from Iran J Public Health 46:982-984. If the article is relevant it should be cited properly for what it is, not hidden behind a website. It's just plain weird to have a website that is nothing but an article. Who would create such a thing, and how does one find such a thing? I'm also not 100% convinced it's correct to include it here. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary, and we should ideally be quoting from people who've reviewed the literature, not delving deep into primary literature and assessing its quality ourselves. Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Name change to Botox

Should the title of the page be changed to botox, because it is the most familiar and popular name of it.? Sangsangaplaz (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)