Talk:Cannabinoid receptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Cell Signaling, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to cell signaling and signal transduction. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Cell Signaling WikiProject project, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

cannabinoid receptors

[edit] add non-cb1/cb2 receptor

add non-cb1/cb2 receptor--Goldengrape 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

I deleted the THC-link because I think this website is not a reliable resource for medical information, irrespective of which professor wrote the information. I think well-known, peer-reviewed sources should be the standard. Please discuss here if you disagree.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your philosofy at all. The information on Cannabinoids that I linked to is from one of the world's most outstanding researchers on cannabinoids and gives a ton more information on cannabinoids(Dr. Robert J. Melamede Ph.D. Chairman of the Biology Department of the University of Colorado: Conducting Scientific research on Cannabinoids), and how they work in the body that that other external link which only mentions the word in a list of other words.

Also, the website, and page, that this information is on; http://www.thc-ministry.net/cannabisinfo.htm is totally non profit, non commercial and has no ads or sells anything whatsoever and contains lots more scientific facts and information.

I also do not agree at all with your reasoning as this being spam because of the fact, as you state it, that I belong to the organisation, this would mean that when experts in their field who work for a university would be spamming when they refer to relevant information on their university's website.

--Ferre 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I do not contest that this professor is respectable (although he has only 2 articles on PubMed related to cannabis? so maybe you're overstating just a bit).

2) I think a website that states "It is our opinion that cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to feed all our hungers." probably doesn't have high scientific standards, and is not notable as a reference on this subject.

3) Any professor can make a simple mistake, that's why peer-review was invented. I'm not saying the info is wrong or not interesting, on the contrary! But I'm sure other references like OMIM and eMedicine are superior.

4) Since it indeed gives a ton more information, you might consider moving this ton of info into the article, instead of providing a link. I'll be the first to applaud this, and in fact if I find some time and can find references for those statements, I will!

5) I think it is always dangerous to provide info about an organisation to which you belong yourself, because of the difficulty not being biased. This does not mean that info on certain websites can be trusted, but in this case I think the link doesn't belong because, as I argued before, this website is not a reliable resource for medical information. I believe this is so because (i) the website doesn't have a neutral point of view (ii) it is not a well-known, peer-reviewed resource. --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

• A reference for CB2 and intestine was inserted
• The Nature reference is now in the proper format
• The phrase 'need for selective ligands' was deleted as there are plenty of CB2-selective ligands now
• The heading pharmakokinetics was changed to Signaling as pharmakokinetics are something else.
• A reference for a new cannabinoid receptor was included
• Several possible for cannabinoid agonists and antagonists were added

-- Panoramix303 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Small Text