Talk:Dopamine receptor

message: This page has been a stub for a very long time.--Kintaro 06:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find the current layout to be ideal.  Leaving it room to grow doesn't mishape it to much and welcomes in additions.  Imo it should stay as is.Foolishben 08:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: I think the separate articles on the D1 to D5 receptors are too small to merit their own page. It is probably better to merge all these pages into one article. When the information on a particular receptors grows sufficiently large, it can then be specified as a main article Kpmiyapuram (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know...it's been on my "to do" list for a while to expand each of these. Hopefully I can muster the spare time & energy to finally get crackin' on that... — Scientizzle 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already sufficient information in the literature, especially related to pharmacology of dopamine receptor subtypes to justify a separate article on each. In fact some of this information has recently been added (e.g., subtype selective ligands).  These receptors are of high interest as therapeutic targets to the pharmaceutical industry and the development of subtype selective ligands is a very promising way of dissociating desirable therapeutic from undesirable side effects, so the amount of information will only grow over time.  Therefore I strongly oppose merging these articles.  Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bunch of studies on the DRD4.7 polymorphism all found off of the NCBI gene entry for DRD4.  There is a wealth of information on this one polymorphism in relation to behavior.  Given the amount of information, I would also agree with Boghog2.  On a completely unrelated note, someone might want to go back and format the refs I listed, they may not be wikipedia standard as I just copied the citations from the NCBI database.  I understand the importance of correct citation but it's a pain in the butt...  StephenPCook (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your support and contribution to the DR article.  Per your request, I have reformatted the citations that you have added using the cite journal template.   If you haven't seen this yet, check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool.  Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a formatted citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my attempts to remove the needs citations banner, I wonder if anyone can tell me which parts in the DRD2 subheading needs citations; the fact that the isoforms exist or that they pre or post-synaptically situated?  Or both?  NCBI lists a variety of studies where the sequence of the proteins were identified.  I'm thinking the subtypes should be named here and their specific properties can be discussed on the DRD2 wiki.  If that is the case then the comments on this page should satisfy the need of citations for both isoforms.  I figured I'd seek some feedback before I edit, so thanks.  StephenPCook (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge subtypes 

message: " i.e., keep going on the neurotransmission (excitatory or inhibitory) once blocked by a receptor antagonist or stimulated by the endogenous neurotransmitter itself or a synthetic full or partial agonist." Syntax is confusing... Can someone clarify please? Thanks! Horus (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.—argumzio 03:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence 

message: DRD4 also has a long list of SNP that can also be found on the NCBI website.  I submit that naming each polymorphism does little to explain anything about this gene and that all that information can be summed up in a sentence.  I think any other information can be retrieved from the actual database.  If there is precedent for listing vntr polymorphisms on wikipedia, please feel free to revert.  StephenPCook (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine. The list was rather long. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about DRD4 

message: Hi,
I had a quick look, but couldn't see the extra 90% increase in receptors in the Science article.  But I don't doubt that it's there.
Another study [25] showed in a living subject, dopamine 2 receptors had increased approximately 90% after neuroleptic treatment.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional receptors 

message: I know that either D1 or D2 is excitatory and the other is inhibitory, but not which is which.  This is something that should be in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.209.130 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it isn't that simple, and the literature is contradictory. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a discussion of the contradictory literature on this topic be added? 129.64.209.130 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose so (but I personally would be reluctant to write it, because I have a WP:COI). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And, further, there's tons of evidence for postsynaptic D2 receptors (maybe some evidence that D3 is presynaptic). And there's also the issue of receptors that have mixed actions, such as modulating both ion channels and signaling cascades, in such a way that the ionic and the cascade-mediated effects may be opposite with respect to excitation. Indeed, it may be a case where it would just be "too much information" to go into it in this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also totally forgot to include receptor heteromers in my list above...Heteromerize a Gs-coupled GPCR with a Gi-coupled GPCR and sometimes the complex activates Gq instead! While some of the basics of these signaling complexities can and probably should be touched on in this article (or better at the individual receptor articles), it could be far too easy to overload this page with minutiae. — Scientizzle 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  excitatory or inhibitory? 

message: Someone seems to have misread the conclusion of the study. It is that "clinically effective doses of chemically distinct neuroleptic drugs result in 85 to 90 percent occupancy of D2 dopamine receptors". Nothing to do with increases in binding potential: that was only established in a much newer study, "for the first time", as it says there. So anyway, I'm deleting the relevant bit from the article as it is a clear misreading. Firrtree (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ref 25 really says 

message: It would be nice for the section to elaborate on the bi-phasic ability of D2 receptors to certain agonist (such as quinpirole).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarade (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on D2 receptor family 

message: Heteromers from review (excluding NMDAR): adenosine A1–D1, adenosine A2A–D2, D1–D2, D1–D3, D2–D4, D2–TAAR1, D2–ghrelin receptor, D4–β1 adrenoceptor and D4-α1B adrenoceptor; DRD1 + DRD2 can transactivate TrkB and regulate calcium channels & sodium-potassium pumps via prot/ein-protein interactions ←→   
*Transactivation/prot-prot interations
*DRD4–7R is a loss of function mutation which lacks D2–D4-mediated striatal glutamate efflux and synergistic signaling from the D2–D4 heteromer through striatal MAPK 
Lots of redlinks... joy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably going to make articles on the D2–TAAR1 and D2–D4 heteromers due to their functional significance & notability respectively.  I've never worked with protein boxes before, so IDK if these heteromers are even covered in the associated databases. Is a protein box appropriate for these, or should I just exclude one for now? ...and I can't find any MOS anywhere that covers article topics on GPCR oligomers - should I just follow the section ordering as indicated in MOS:MCB when/if appropriate? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   A few of these heteromers are covered in specialist databases like IUPHAR.  However as far as I know, we do not have any infoboxes that would cover these cases. Including more than one  would overwhelm an article.  In these cases, what I have tended to do is use the more compact .  You can see an example in D1-D2 Dopamine receptor heteromer.  The template filler used to be able to fill these out, but for some reason, this no longer works.  I am trying to fix this. Boghog (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRD# heteromers, TrkB transactivation, protein-protein interactions 

message: I was running through some pages and searching for copyright violations and found the Addiction section to be completely copied off another site. You can view this report  If anyone wants to pitch in and help change the section to something that isn't copy pasted, this information would be quite useful to have. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright Violation 

message: This source: 
|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432817319034?via%3Dihub}}</ref>
has interesting information about the role of D1 and D2 receptors in the regulation of morphine. The receptors are involved in regulating the "acquisition, expression, extinction of the CPP induced by morphine." This information could be included in the drugs section, and the mechanism of D1 and D2's involvement could be included in the D1 and D2 section of this article.Kwona1 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all research papers (primary sources). Please use literature reviews (secondary sources). Also it would helpful if you would cite the PMID. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  D1 and D2 

message: This source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-011-9261-1
is interesting because it talks about the dopamine receptors in respect to gambling in the Korean population. It may be interesting to create a new section about gambling under the disease section.Kwona1 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also a primary source. Please do see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dopamine receptors and gambling - new section under disease?