Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15655507›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2005

An investigation of whether agonist-selective receptor conformations occur with respect to M2 and M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor signalling via Gi/o and Gs proteins.

Rajendra Mistry, Mark R Dowling, R A John Challiss

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Superagonism at G protein-coupled receptors and beyond.British journal of pharmacology · 2016
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Selectivity of agonists for the active state of M1 to M4 muscarinic receptor subtypes.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2009
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rajendra MistryDepartment of Cell Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Leicester, Maurice Shock Medical Sciences Building, University Road, Leicester.
Mark R Dowling
R A John Challiss
University of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1. A range of muscarinic acetylcholine (mACh) receptor agonists (methacholine (MCh), oxotremorine-M (OXO-M), oxotremorine (OXO), arecoline (AREC), bethanechol (BETH), pilocarpine (PILO)) have been investigated with respect to their binding to, and activation of, M(2) and M(4) mACh receptors, recombinantly expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells, to explore the possibility that these agonists may differentially affect mACh receptor-G(i/o) and -G(s) coupling. 2. M(2)/M(4) mACh receptor coupling to the adenylyl cyclase/cyclic AMP signalling pathway has been explored in intact cells. G(i/o)-mediated negative coupling to adenylyl cyclase was explored functionally by assessing the ability of the mACh receptor agonists to inhibit forskolin-stimulated enzymic activity. Following pertussis toxin treatment (100 ng ml(-1), 18-20 h) to inactivate G(i/o) proteins, each agonist caused a G(s)-mediated enhancement of forskolin-stimulated adenylyl cyclase activity. 3. At both M(2) and M(4) mACh receptors, all agonists tested were more potent in mediating G(i/o)- versus G(s)-coupled responses. This difference (determined as the pIC(50) (G(i/o) coupling) minus pEC(50) (G(s) coupling) value) was greatest for AREC (65-75-fold) and least for BETH and PILO (</=10-fold). 4. Using apparent binding affinities (pK(B)), and potency (EC(50)/IC(50)) and responsiveness (E(max)/I(max)) estimates, relative efficacy (e(rel)) values for each agonist with respect to M(2) and M(4) mACh receptor coupling to G(i/o)- and G(s)-mediated signalling were also calculated. While the e(rel) values obtained for MCh and OXO-M in CHO-m2 cells were similar, OXO-M behaved as a 'super-agonist' at the M(4) mACh receptor giving greater e(rel) values for both G(i/o) and G(s) coupling relative to MCh. 5. The experimental data indicate that while interesting differences between agonists with respect to M(2)/M(4) mACh receptor activation and receptor-G(i/o) and -G(s) coupling can be discerned, no clear examples of agonist trafficking of signal have emerged.

Indexed as

AnimalsBinding, CompetitiveCHO CellsCricetinaeCricetulusGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, GsMuscarinic AgonistsReceptor, Muscarinic M2Receptor, Muscarinic M4Recombinant ProteinsSignal TransductionGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, GsMuscarinic AgonistsReceptor, Muscarinic M2Receptor, Muscarinic M4Recombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15655507
PMCPMC1576035
OpenAlexW2021834385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.