Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40765916›Full record

ReviewBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2025

From theory to platelets: unraveling the history and complexities of biased signaling.

NaShea C Kendrick, Grace H Huang, Germaine J Harvey, Marvin T Nieman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

NaShea C KendrickDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Grace H HuangDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Germaine J HarveyDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Marvin T NiemanDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biased signaling refers to a phenomenon where a ligand preferentially activates 1 signaling pathway over another at the same receptor. It is best described for ligands that selectively activate G protein-coupled receptors through G protein or β-arrestin pathways. The concept of biased signaling has a rich history that has been experimentally characterized in the past 40 years. As early as the 1970s, models of biased signaling suggested that ligand-bound receptors have a rigid structure, whereas free receptors are fluid proteins with multiple potential active states. Recent cell signaling studies demonstrate that ligands block select signaling pathways but amplify others. This suggests that each ligand can stabilize a unique active conformation supporting the proposed model. Additional studies expanded our understanding of biased signaling to include biased receptors and system bias, which consider the impact of genetic differences and cellular context in which the signal is being studied. This is exemplified in platelet biology. Platelets are nonnucleated cells that rely on membrane receptors such as protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1), PAR4, and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) to facilitate platelet activation. There is now evidence of biased signaling through PAR1, PAR4, and TLR4 in platelets, making them attractive therapeutic targets. Here, we describe the origins of biased signaling theory and explore the concepts of biased agonists and systems through the lens of platelet activation.

Identifiers

PMID40765916
PMCPMC12320398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.