Talk:Dactinomycin

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Dactinomycin.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Structure

Structure lacks stereochemistry. I believe the structure is here: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.10482167.html --ChemSpiderMan (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a structure with stereochemistry. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a brief description of the structure ? eg is it two macrolide rings linked with ?? - Rod57 (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rude advertisment?

We may allow a link to a page that adds or verifies information, but should we suffer such arrogant misuse of Wikipedia as the current BioAustralis add here? they give a link not to an useful monograph of theirs, but to their order form ! Lushi (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unused image

--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]