Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22021988›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology2011

Inverse agonism and its therapeutic significance.

Gurudas Khilnani, Ajeet Kumar Khilnani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Critical role of Aquaporin-1 and telocytes in infantile hemangioma response to propranolol beta blockade.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Making Sense of Pharmacology: Inverse Agonism and Functional Selectivity.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2018
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Allosteric Inhibition of Serotonin 5-HTMolecular neurobiology · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. NaNature chemical biology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. βScientific reports · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gurudas KhilnaniDepartment of Pharmacology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, India.
Ajeet Kumar Khilnani
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College · INRabindranath Tagore Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large number of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) show varying degrees of basal or constitutive activity. This constitutive activity is usually minimal in natural receptors but is markedly observed in wild type and mutated (naturally or induced) receptors. According to conventional two-state drug receptor interaction model, binding of a ligand may initiate activity (agonist with varying degrees of positive intrinsic activity) or prevent the effect of an agonist (antagonist with zero intrinsic activity). Inverse agonists bind with the constitutively active receptors, stabilize them, and thus reduce the activity (negative intrinsic activity). Receptors of many classes (α-and β-adrenergic, histaminergic, GABAergic, serotoninergic, opiate, and angiotensin receptors) have shown basal activity in suitable in vitro models. Several drugs that have been conventionally classified as antagonists (β-blockers, antihistaminics) have shown inverse agonist effects on corresponding constitutively active receptors. Nearly all H(1) and H(2) antihistaminics (antagonists) have been shown to be inverse agonists. Among the β-blockers, carvedilol and bucindolol demonstrate low level of inverse agonism as compared to propranolol and nadolol. Several antipsychotic drugs (D(2) receptors antagonist), antihypertensive (AT(1) receptor antagonists), antiserotoninergic drugs and opioid antagonists have significant inverse agonistic activity that contributes partly or wholly to their therapeutic value. Inverse agonism may also help explain the underlying mechanism of beneficial effects of carvedilol in congestive failure, naloxone-induced withdrawal syndrome in opioid dependence, clozapine in psychosis, and candesartan in cardiac hypertrophy. Understanding inverse agonisms has paved a way for newer drug development. It is now possible to develop agents, which have only desired therapeutic value and are devoid of unwanted adverse effect. Pimavanserin (ACP-103), a highly selective 5-HT(2A) inverse agonist, attenuates psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease with psychosis and is devoid of extrapyramidal side effects. This dissociation is also evident from the development of anxioselective benzodiazepines devoid of habit-forming potential. Hemopressin is a peptide ligand that acts as an antagonist as well as inverse agonist. This agent acts as an antinociceptive agent in different in vivo models of pain. Treatment of obesity by drugs having inverse agonist activity at CB(1/2) receptors is also underway. An exciting development is evaluation of β-blockers in chronic bronchial asthma-a condition akin to congestive heart failure where β-blockade has become the standard mode of therapy. Synthesis and evaluation of selective agents is underway. Therefore, inverse agonism is an important aspect of drug-receptor interaction and has immense untapped therapeutic potential.

Indexed as

Constitutive activityG-protein-coupled receptorsinverse agonisminverse agonists

Identifiers

PMID22021988
PMCPMC3195115
OpenAlexW2030197758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.