From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Functional Selectivity[edit]

How does "Functional Selectivity" broaden "the conventional definition of pharmacology"? --JWSchmidt 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Agonists[edit]

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[edit]

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."[edit]

In what sense? I know that the term does link etymologically back, but a chemical agonist is not a "contestant".

A Link to Systems[edit]

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[edit]

Partial agonists can act as antagonists, as in the presence of in reads like they are the same agonist=partial agonist. The point I was originally trying to make is the presence of an agonist... when both agonist and partial agonist are present... 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). 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

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 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)