Science paper Extraction and Characterization of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine from Mimosa tenuiflora: A Multivariate Approach

Fresh off the press! Hot new research from Brazil.

ABSTRACT:
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a plant-derived tryptamine alkaloid, has attracted growing interest due to its therapeutic potential in treating mental health disorders resistant to conventional pharmacological interventions. This study aimed to establish an efficient methodology for the extraction, isolation, and characterization of DMT, and to identify the most viable portion of the Mimosa tenuiflora plant (root bark vs stem bark) through a multianalytical approach to assess the biomedical applicability of the isolated compound. Samples were subjected to various characterization techniques and methodological analyses. Among the tested samples, sample 2C─obtained using methodology 2, which employed the stem bark─yielded 3.45% (calculated from 5.0003 g of powdered stem bark, corresponding to approximately 0.172 g of pure DMT) and exhibited a robust phytochemical profile, with a significant presence of alkaloids, tannins, and flavonoids. Morphological characterization by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed a heterogeneous, amorphous surface, whereas recrystallization produced well-defined prismatic crystals. Elemental composition, evaluated by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF), revealed a high proportion of carbon (76.03%) and nitrogen (23.97%), along with trace elements typical of plant matrices, such as calcium and iron. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) showed characteristic absorption bands of indole functional groups, confirming the presence of DMT. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) demonstrated thermal stability up to approximately 135 °C─a critical parameter for pharmaceutical processing. DMT identification was confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection (HPLC-DAD), showing a retention time of 11.81 min and absorbance peaks at 275, 280, and 288 nm, consistent with this alkaloid. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) further validated the identity, yielding a retention time of 16.4 min and 88% spectral similarity with the NIST library, including characteristic fragments at m/z 58, 130, and 188. The cellular viability of the isolated DMT exceeded 85% at therapeutic concentrations, with a significant reduction observed only at 100 μg/mL (53 ± 21%), possibly due to experimental overexposure. These findings identify sample 2C as a promising candidate for the development of standardized pharmaceutical formulations containing DMT and provide robust analytical support for future standardization, scale-up, and clinical application within the framework of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.

ACS Omega 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.5c06560

Thus, considering the objectives of this investigation in selecting the most viable methodology and plant matrix, the stem bark demonstrates greater potential for the extraction process due to its lower content of catalytic metals and reduced accumulation of minerals that could interfere with the matrix characteristics. These factors, combined with more favorable physicochemical properties such as lower density and ash content, make the stem bark more suitable. Although previous studies have reported relatively high DMT levels in the root bark of M. tenuiflora, this study employed a multifactorial evaluation that extends beyond DMT content alone, aiming to identify the optimal plant portion─stem bark or root bark─for DMT extraction. The results indicate that stem bark is the more viable option, a finding that, while less commonly reported in the literature, corroborates the work of Amariz et al., (51) who developed a factorial design for DMT extraction from stem bark.

 

[Transform]

Cool beans, raises some interesting questions from a POV of tuning extraction techniques to specific materials.

Plot twist: this guy has a warehouse full of nearly bunk tepescohuite and has faked the result to help in getting rid of it

 

[Icon]

Cool beans, raises some interesting questions from a POV of tuning extraction techniques to specific materials.

Plot twist: this guy has a warehouse full of nearly bunk tepescohuite and has faked the result to help in getting rid of it

Lol I've been thinking of some scenarios too, like what if the farmers have been throwing in stem bark to bulk out shipments, praying no one would notice, and by coincidence it never mattered.

Or they knew the whole time and were saving it for themselves

If the data stands and the farmers don't know, might be a good opportunity to get the stem bark at a discount. Or an opportunity for scammers to upcharge consumers by labeling their RB as SB.

 

[BahiyaSutta]

this study had some flaws

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

gemini.google.com

 

[blig-blug]

this study had some flaws

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

gemini.google.com

You can't be serious with this. Are you aware that the way you are framing your question already conditions what this token-prediction program outputs? And are you aware that this specific output is nonsense?

Are you seriously suggesting that the authors lied (e.g. about the yield) because an LLM told you so?

Compare:
Positive context: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_3f1efaf0-b7e0-4e1e-8dc6-b4992150d625
Negative context: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_101990c2-342f-478e-9887-af724be8aa3e

Stop outsourcing your thinking.

 

[aizoaceous]

This forum would benefit from a prominent warning not to blindly trust LLMs. The output is almost always superficially correct and emotionally pleasing to the reader (that's what the thumbs-up/down buttons are for!), and often actually correct; but it's often total nonsense too. It's only a matter of time before the combination of that and untrained users extracting dangerous drugs gets someone seriously hurt or killed.

As to specifics, the paper itself notes that their EDS doesn't respond to hydrogen, so the LLM's "Major Red Flag" element ratio comparison is not meaningful. NMR would generally be required to confidently determine the structure of a novel compound; but for a known compound known to be the primary alkaloid of the species, their verification (MS, UV, FTIR, TGA, HPLC and GC retention times) is more than sufficient, if anything oddly thorough. That's perhaps to compensate for their lack of a reference standard, which is also odd. I'd guess they found that difficult to lawfully buy, but I don't know anything about the Brazilian regulations.

LLMs are most useful in situations where it's easy to test the answer but hard to find it. For example, a skilled software developer working with unfamiliar tools can usually judge pretty quickly whether an LLM suggestion is correct, and quickly discard the nonsense. LLMs can also sometimes find journal articles that search engines can't, and the alleged finding can then be verified by hand. The interface and marketing unfortunately seem designed to invite the misuse that we see above, though.

 

[Icon]

The way the question is written makes me think the person is not very knowledgeable themselves, likely illiterate. Even though the AI breaks down some reasons, if you couldn't read the paper already I don't think you're going to get any value out of the AI highlighting:

• GC-MS Fingerprint: The Mass Spectrometry results showed a parent ion at m/z 188 (matching DMT's molecular weight) and a base peak at m/z 58. The m/z 58 fragment is a specific "fingerprint" for the N,N-dimethyl-ethyl side chain. A "very similar molecule" like NMT (N-methyltryptamine) would have a mass of 174 and a different fragmentation pattern. Tryptamine would be 160.

And they couldn't possibly verify the AI's conclusions, so it's really senseless to trust AI to interpret the paper correctly, let alone a poorly written inquiry about it.

A science paper shouldn't be accused of being flawed without strong evidence, and the question proposed to the AI wasn't even if it was flawed, so I'm not sure where that conclusion came from.

It's really... brainless. Either an AI zombie or AI bot trying to get people to take up a conversation with Gemini? Idk who would actually go around challenging scientific institutions like this. Trolling?