|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The rationale behind the request is: "difficult to understand technical information about a subject when heard can be better understood than just read alone, and may also reach a wider audience".
How does "Functional Selectivity" broaden "the conventional definition of pharmacology"? --JWSchmidt 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
List of Agonists
can we have a nice functional list of some examples of agonists? i believe it would be helpful, while also lengthening this article. --Alveolate 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There are simply too many to list in general. Rather than break it down here, it should be done on receptor pages. I recently updated the list of agonists and antagonists for acetylcholine receptors on the acetylcholine page.--Carlwfbird 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We need a Pluto Talk
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 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"An agonist is a chemical contestant or contender."
In what sense? I know that the term does link etymologically back, but a chemical agonist is not a "contestant".
A Link to Systems
Agonists are part of stimulus-response loops. Perhaps a link in the 'See Also' section to the nervous system or similar cause and effect system would be helpful to students and researchers.
Partial agonist antagonism
Partial agonists can act as antagonists, as in the presence of agonists....as in reads like they are the same agonist=partial agonist. The point I was originally trying to make is ...in the presence of an agonist... when both agonist and partial agonist are present... 184.108.40.206 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
When both an agonist and partial agonist are present they both compete for the same binding site. A partial agonist occupied receptor would be less activated then a full agonist occupied receptor. The partial agonist is antagonising the action of the full agonist (but not completely abolishing its (full agonists) activity). 220.127.116.11 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with their actions - I was trying to clean up the sentence grammatically, using "as [in the presence of a full agonist]" to mean "since [in the presence of a full agonist]" - but I can see how that could be ambiguous. I have changed it a bit more, adding some of what you wrote above (since it was a run-on sentence as previously written); I also tried to clarify why it behaved as a competitive antagonist for the less familiar reader. Let me know what you think. Best, St3vo 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
yes that spells it out perfectly.Lilypink 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Hey if you wanted you could also help edit the antagonist article also. It up for a pharmacolgy collaboration of the week this week!! see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Receptor_antagonist
Rather basic question: So are reuptake inhibitors classified as agonists, or not? I gather, not, but if so, it might be nice to make the distinction here. There's no page on "reuptake inhibitors" as a general class so don't look for an answer (or try to place an answer) there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)