ArticleEuropean journal of pharmacology2008
A pharmacological comparison of the cloned frog and human mu opioid receptors reveals differences in opioid affinity and function.
Article in European journal of pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Single Amino Acid Variation Underlies Species-Specific Sensitivity to Amphibian Skin-Derived Opioid-like Peptides.Chemistry & biology · 2015Article
- Analgesia in amphibians: preclinical studies and clinical applications.The veterinary clinics of North America. Exotic animal practice · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a direct comparison of the ligand binding and signaling profiles of a mammalian and non-mammalian mu opioid receptor. Opioid ligand binding and agonist potencies were determined for an amphibian (Rana pipiens) mu opioid receptor (rpMOR) and the human mu opioid receptor (hMOR) in transfected, intact Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Identical conditions were employed such that statistically meaningful differences between the two receptors could be determined. Identifying these differences is an important first step in understanding how evolutionary changes affect ligand binding and signaling in vertebrate opioid receptors. As expected, the rank of opioid ligand affinity for rpMOR and hMOR was consistent with the ligands' previously characterized type-selectivity. However, most of the opioid ligands tested had significant differences in affinity for rpMOR and hMOR. For example, the mu-selective agonist, DAMGO ([d-Ala(2), N-Me-Phe(4), Gly(5)-ol]-enkephalin), had a 10.9-fold greater affinity (K(i)) for hMOR (K(i)=268 nM) than rpMOR (K(i)=2914 nM). In addition, differences in signaling between these receptors were found by measuring inhibition of cAMP accumulation by morphine or DAMGO. DAMGO was significantly more potent (13.6-fold) in CHO cells expressing hMOR versus those expressing rpMOR. In addition, a significantly greater maximal inhibition was elicited by both opioid agonists in cells expressing hMOR. In summary, this study supports an ongoing effort to better understand how vertebrate evolution has shaped opioid receptor properties and function.
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.