Talk:Inverse agonist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R015-4513 The description does not seem to fit the profile of a reverse agonist. Rather, this seems to fit the description of an antagonist. R015-4513 appears to simply block access to the GABA channel preventing the access of alcohol. Since it elicits no action from the receptor change, this does not fit the definition of a reverse agonist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.53.30 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 05:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
WAIT! something that is being left out here is that the receptor binding site is on an inactive receptor. yes it is the same receptor, but in a different conformation. using the lock and key analogy, an inverse agonist binds the lock before it is inserted in the door. a true agonist binds the lock when it is in the door and acting as a lock. in the cell, the lock is constantly changing location from in the door and out of the door.-- JW 27 September 2007
Fine. But still, there is not much consensus on this. Publications can be found describing this mechanism as antagonism. This is a very good molecular definition. Physiologists and animal behavior studies still use inverse agonism in yet a different definition - a ligand which elicits the opposite effect of a known agonist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.212.33 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with agonists page?
I wonder if the contents of the inverse agonist article could infact be inserted into the "agonists" article, as other types of agonist, e.g. partial agonist do not have their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werlop (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)