ArticleMolecular pharmacology2011
Flapping loops: roles for hinges in a ligand-binding domain of the nicotinic receptor.
Article in Molecular pharmacology, 2011. 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.
- Roles for N-terminal extracellular domains of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) β3 subunits in enhanced functional expression of mouse α6β2β3- and α6β4β3-nAChRs.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
One of the goals of molecular pharmacology is to understand the machinery that converts information about the presence of a chemical (binding) to a functional consequence. Agonists are drugs that bind to their molecular targets and cause conformational changes underlying activation of the target. Inevitably, therefore, it can be difficult to disentangle the affinity of the agonist for the target from its efficacy in producing the ensuing conformational change. Efficacy depends on two factors: the intrinsic equilibrium between active and inactive states in the absence of agonist, and the energy contributed by the agonist as a result of the relative affinities of agonist for the active and inactive states. These difficulties are particularly frustrating when the goal is to determine the role(s) that particular residues in a target protein have in shaping the overall efficacy of a drug: how is it possible to unambiguously distinguish a role in determining intrinsic efficacy from one in determining relative affinity? This perspective highlights a research article in this issue (p. 351) that demonstrates a quantitative approach to the resolution of this problem in the case of activation of the muscle nicotinic receptor. This elegant (if demanding) approach involves determining, separately, the consequences of specific mutations on gating in the unliganded and liganded states.
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.