Talk:Adrenergic receptor

Re: Cleanup. There's a lot of info at Basic Neurochemistry: α- and β-Adrenergic Receptors to be incorporated into this article. We might also need sources for the order of agonist activity! Micha 08:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The image of the adrenergic receptors and their activity blocks half of the table describing each receptor and its targets/actions. I'm not tech-savvy enough to format the picture to fit, perhaps someone else is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.32.54 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of affinities

I don't trust the given order of affinities (see e.g. edit by 130.15.183.214 on 06:31, 24 April 2006 [1]) and I can't find a good source to back them up. So, I've moved them here. Micha 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found a source for the potencies and have tabulated them with a reference. Hope this helps. 86.141.193.9 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Noradrenaline>Adrenaline>Phenylephrine order of potency for alpha-1

β-Adrenergic receptors: Agonist affinity: isoprenaline > adrenaline > noradrenaline

---

Isoprenaline is not a selective alpha agonist - reference to this has been removed. 82.25.249.189 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Perhaps we can have two varients of this webpage. One with the UK terms, one with the US terms. I believe epinepherine and norepinepherine are more widely used.--Carlwfbird 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a disclaimer at the top would be sufficient. I've always studied using the US terms, but I don't mind the UK terms at all since we're taught that they're the same thing. 70.104.126.213 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

It beats me as to why they would be called Adrenaline and Noradrenaline in the intro and images, but then the first sentence starts talking about epinephrine and norepinephrine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.66 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline and noradrenaline are the UK terms & epinephrine and norepinephrine are the respective US equivalents. But can I think the above does raise the point that to people unfamiliar with this these pharmacological synonyms it is confusing. I know there is a note in the introductory paragraph, but I think it would be much better to standardize all the references on the page and have a more visible disclaimer at the start. thoughts? --Dylan2106 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)