Talk:Receptor antagonist

message: Agonists, inverse agonists, antagonists, functional selectivity.  There are too many variations in individual definitions of all of these.  I often hear inverse agonists being described as antagonists by knowledgable people in pharmacology,  because when they were educated, there was nothing other than the on / off dogma associated with the terms.  The problem in clarification extends too to binding sites of receptors.  There should be a difference in name between agonists which work at the same binding site of a receptor and those which do not.  I hereby motion that we raise this issue, whether it be here on wikipedia or in a conference to discuss this issue so that the confusion does not continue into the future.--Carlwfbird 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a Pluto Talk

message: "A drug which attenuates the effect of an agonist." is not a complete sentence.
Suggestions:
"It can also be a drug which attenuates the effect of an agonist."
"It is a drug which attenuates the effect of an agonist."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pammalamma (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Note 

message: Is it just me or do these drugs sound like they allosterically inhibit the action of some receptors see: Surin et al Cyclothiazide selectively inhibits mGluR1 receptors interacting with a common allosteric site for non-competitive antagonists  Neuropharmacology Volume 52, Issue 3, March 2007, Pages 744-754 
Don't want to say they are incase it would be factually incorrect to do so at this point140.203.12.241 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversible non-competitive antagonism

message: This article has been selected as the current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. Dr. Cash 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month

message: Everything is referenced with seemingly reliable sources, the ones I cheched backed up the text in the article they were cited for. I can understand the text (I think - I changed the bits that were a little hard) and there are no spelling mistakes or other annoying things. It's a bit weak on images, but the one included is good.
Possible problem: Isn't ref 10 supposed to be , because the current one leads to an article that doesn't exist on the homepage for Br J Pharmacol.
Narayanese (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably a review and reprint of a classic article. We can add  to note that the full text of the original article is available free of charge. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Added that template. Another thing: what are those non-protein receptors mentioned at the start of Receptors section? Narayanese (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. All classical receptors are proteins. — Scientizzle 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I'm a college grad with a basic science (mostly physics) and heavy math background. In general I haven't had much trouble understanding writings about biochemistry, esp. neurotransmitters and psychiatric drugs, but this article was nearly incomprehensible due to the complete reliance on jargon that only a biochemist would understand. This article could be made a lot more understandable by including descriptions of how receptor antagonists work in plain English.
71.231.162.174 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Technical 

message: This whole part is rubbish:
"By definition, antagonists display no efficacy to activate the receptors they bind. Antagonists do not maintain the ability to activate a receptor. Once bound, however, antagonists inhibit the function of agonists, inverse agonists, and partial agonists."
I deleted it, but just in case it comes back I advice to delete it.
Antagonist ligands has efficacy just like agonist has. It just means teh strength of effect,and not stimulus per se.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.211.170 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your deletion, as does the source. A silent antagonist has affinity but no efficacy when efficacy is understood to mean activation of the receptor following occupancy. In the generalized model, the antagonist does not alter any endogeneous signaling of a receptor but it also prevents agonist activation. Antagonists do have effectiveness, measured as an IC50, but this is potency and distinct from efficacy. — Scientizzle 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy reference is WRONG! 

message: I realise that much of this article will inevitably be technical. Nevertheless, it would be useful to have at least a few sentences in the lead that are understandable to a general audience. 86.176.208.182 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a layman's explanation too