is this found in nature?

0.

let me clear this up for you, because you seem to be confused: LSD is a semi-synthetic. the diethylamine is the synthetic component, lysergic acid is the naturally occurring component.

so, there's no such thing as a plant growing any form of diethylamine or diethylamide in nature then? plant never needed to form an amine or amide?

here's a good question then, is no amine or amides are found in nature or animals, how do we get psychoactive effects from a molecule with diethylamide in it.

diethylamine has two two-carbon groups (ethyls) branching from a central nitrogen. this doesn't occur in nature.
fin.



I never said amines or amides are not found in nature, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

diethylamine, once again, is an altogether different compound.. a synthetic one, not an amino acid.

and it's not diethylamine that gives LSD its psychedelic effects. rather, it's a constituent that increases the affinity to certain receptors (it increases the potency of the lysergic acid amide moeity).

LAA (lysergic acid amide) is naturally occuring.

whoops, i meant to say there's no diethyl amides or amines found in nature

thanks for explaining that.

even if you had an enzyme that performs a diethyl-amidation, it is very unlikely that you would be able to make it accept lysergic acid as a substrate.

And say you do that, then what other substrate are you going to use for the diethylamidation?? It could be diethylamine, or it could be anything else - and how is it going to bind as a substrate on your enzyme after you've messed it so much trying to make it bind lysergic acid?? Sure, IF you get the bloody enzyme in the first place you may spend a lifetime trying to make it work the way you want. But I wouldn't put my money on you

It is very weird that you are trying all the time to get into a biotechnological synthesis of LSD. Why?? I'm not trying to be negative here, just slightly rational. You see that all the other people basically think it is a nice idea but theoretically and practically immensely complicated.

Just get a chemistry degree, do a PhD in like organic chemistry and synthesis (which basically gives you the access to a well equipped lab!) and in 5-6 years from now you may be able to make at least 10 grams of the stuff. Which I admit should sound like paradise to people who like using this drug!

sure

but i wasn't talking about diethylamide for lsd purposes. I was just asking generally if diethylamide occured in nature at all.

I guess it kind of spun off on the whole lsd in nature theory. What I was trying to establish, is why lsd works in the brain if there's no diethy amines or amides in nature.

I thought your brain would need a receptor for a diethyl amide. Apparently not, i'm suprised that diethylamide has never had a need to be synthesized in nature.

which is almost certainly the reason why lsd isn't found in nature. although it would probably grow in a plant that hid from the sun, and i don't know how it would deal with the oxygen. but apparently diethylamines have no use in nature. this makes sense, since lysergic acids readily produce into lysergic acid amide, and even hydroxyethylamide. but no diethylamides

i wish there was some explanation for the reasoning of the lack of diethylamine or triethylamine to be produced in nature. good question, huh?

that one piece makes all the difference, otherwise, lysergic acid hydroxyethylamide would work like lsd.

as it it almost the exact same size in length, but it's an extended amide instead of a diethylamide.

well....?????