ArticlePsychopharmacology2010
Discriminative stimulus effects of serotonin agonists, neutral antagonists, and inverse agonists in pigeons: perspectives on intrinsic efficacy measurements in vivo.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2010. 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.
- Synthesis and Structure-Activity Relationships of Tool Compounds Based on WAY163909, a 5-HTACS chemical neuroscience · 2017Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThe extended ternary complex theory of receptor function states a ligand can be classified as an inverse agonist, agonist, or neutral antagonist based on its ability to preferentially stabilize the inactive conformation, the active conformation, or to have no preference for conformational state, respectively.
objectivesWhile serotonin(2C) (5-HT(2C)) receptor ligands are classified accordingly in vitro, whether the phenomenon of inverse agonism manifests itself and/or is physiologically relevant in vivo is unknown.
methodsTherefore, we tested a range of proposed agonists, neutral antagonists, and inverse agonists with activity at 5-HT(2C) receptors in three groups of pigeons trained to discriminate saline from: 1.0 mg/kg MK212, an agonist; 0.1 mg/kg methysergide, a proposed neutral antagonist; or, 10 mg/kg mianserin, a proposed inverse agonist.
resultsBased on the patterns of substitution, the discriminative stimulus effects of MK212 appear to be mediated through agonist actions and the stimulus effects of methysergide and mianserin appear to be mediated through antagonist actions. Selective 5-HT(2B/2C) inverse agonist SB206,553 (1 mg/kg) blocked the MK212 discriminative stimulus cue and substituted (0.32-10 mg/kg) in both methysergide- and mianserin-trained pigeons, confirming a 5-HT(2C) receptor role in mediating these discriminative stimuli. Inverse agonists and neutral antagonists fully substituted for methysergide. In addition to SB206,553, methysergide (0.032-1.0 mg/kg) and 5-HT(1A) agonist 8-OH-DPAT (0.32-1.0 mg/kg) substituted completely for mianserin suggesting a complex discriminative stimulus profile for this proposed inverse agonist.
conclusionsThese data and the subsequent analyses suggest that the discriminative cues of MK212, methysergide, and mianserin are different and that the drug discrimination paradigm is a useful functional assay to examine intrinsic efficacy in vivo.
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.