ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2003
Pharmacological comparison of the alternatively spliced short and long CCK2 receptors.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thermodynamic analysis of ligands at cholecystokinin CCK2 receptors in rat cerebral cortex.British journal of pharmacology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) The alternatively spliced, short and long cholecystokinin receptors (CCK2S and CCK2L) were expressed in NIH3T3 cells, and compared using radioligand-binding assays with identical buffer and incubation conditions. (2) As judged by a saturation analysis, the selective CCK2-receptor antagonist radioligand [3H]-JB93182 did not discriminate between the CCK2S or CCK2L receptors. (3) A global analysis of competition studies, using a range of structurally diverse, CCK-receptor selective ligands, provided further evidence that these receptor subtypes were pharmacologically indistinguishable. However, when analysed individually a number of small, yet significant differences were observed with some of the compounds. (4) These data are consistent with previous study that suggested a possible pharmacological difference between these isoforms, at least in terms of the CCK2-receptor antagonist, L-365,260. However, it would appear that the pharmacological profile of these compounds is not consistent with their affinity at the putative G1/G2 receptors previously described by Harper et al.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.