The assessment of antagonist potency under conditions of transient response kinetics

European Journal of Pharmacology

Volumn 382, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 217-227

  Christopoulos, Arthur ^a   Parsons, Ann M ^a   Lew, Michael J ^b   El Fakahany, Esam E ^a  

^a Departments of Neuroscience   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Antagonism; Ca2+ mobilization; Insurmountable; Kinetics; Monte Carlo simulation; Muscarinic receptor; Transient response

Indexed keywords

ATROPINE; CARBACHOL; MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR; MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; PIRENZEPINE; XANOMELINE;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CALCIUM MOBILIZATION; CELL CULTURE; CHO CELL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG RECEPTOR BINDING; IN VITRO STUDY; KINETICS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; ARTIFACTS; ATROPINE; BINDING, COMPETITIVE; CALCIUM; CARBACHOL; CHO CELLS; CRICETINAE; DRUG ANTAGONISM; HUMANS; INTRACELLULAR FLUID; KINETICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MUSCARINIC AGONISTS; MUSCARINIC ANTAGONISTS; PIRENZEPINE; PYRIDINES; RADIOLIGAND ASSAY; RECEPTOR, MUSCARINIC M1; RECEPTORS, MUSCARINIC; THIADIAZOLES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0032732550     PISSN: 00142999     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2999(99)00550-6     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arunlakshana O., Schild H.O. Some quantitative uses of drug antagonists. Br. J. Pharmacol. 14:1959;48-57.
2. Black J.W., Leff P. Operational models of pharmacological agonism. Proc. R. Soc. (London) B. 220:1983;141-162.
3. Bond R.A., Ornstein A.G., Clarke D.E. Unsurmountable antagonism to 5-hydroxytryptamine in rat kidney results from pseudoirreversible inhibition rather than multiple receptors or allosteric receptor modulation. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 249:1989;401-410.
4. Boselli C., Kenakin T.P. Promiscuous or heterogeneous muscarinic receptors in rat atria? II. Antagonism of responses to carbachol by pirenzepine. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 191:1990;49-57.
5. Caulfield M.P. Muscarinic receptors - characterization, coupling and function. Pharmacol. Ther. 58:1993;319-379.
6. 50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem. Pharmacol. 22:1973;3099-3108.
7. Christopoulos A. Assessing the distribution of parameters in models of ligand-receptor interaction: to log or not to log. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 19:1998;351-357.
8. Christopoulos A., El-Fakahany E.E. The qualitative and quantitative assessment of relative agonist efficacy. Biochem. Pharmacol. 58:1999;. in press.
9. 1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 53:1998;1120-1130.
10. Colquhoun D. Binding, gating, affinity and efficacy: the interpretation of structure-activity relationships for agonists and of the effects of mutating receptors. Br. J. Pharmacol. 125:1998;924-947.
11. Criscione L., de Gasparo M., Buhlmayer P., Whitebread S., Ramjoue H.P., Wood J. Pharmacological profile of valsartan: a potent, orally active, nonpeptide antagonist of the angiotensin II AT1-receptor subtype. Br. J. Pharmacol. 110:1993;761-771.
12. El-Fakahany E.E., Surichamorn W., Amrhein C.L., Stenstrom S., Cioffi C.L., Richelson E., McKinney M. Pseudo-noncompetitive antagonism of muscarinic receptor-mediated cyclic GMP formation and phosphoinositide hydrolysis by pirenzepine. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 247:1988;934-940.
13. Furchgott R.F. The use of β-haloalkylamines in the differentiation of receptors and in the determination of dissociation constants of receptor-agonist complexes. Adv. Drug Res. 3:1966;21-55.
14. 2+ indicators with greatly improved fluorescence properties. J. Biol. Chem. 260:1985;3440-3450.
15. Hara M., Kiyama R., Nakajima S., Kawabata T., Kawakami M., Ohtani K., Itazaki K., Fujishita T., Fujimoto M. Kinetic studies on the interaction of nonlabeled antagonists with the angiotensin II receptor. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 289:1995;267-273.
16. Kachur J.F., Allbee W.E., Gaginella S. Antihistaminic and antimuscarinic effects of amitriptyline on guinea pig ileal electrolyte transport and muscle contractility in vitro. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 245:1988;455-459.
17. Kenakin T.P. Pharmacologic analysis of drug-receptor interaction. 3rd edn. 1997;Lippincott-Raven Press, Philadelphia, PA.
18. Kenakin T.P., Beek D. Is prenalterol (H133/80) really a selective beta 1 adrenoceptor agonist? Tissue selectivity resulting from differences in stimulus-response relationships. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 213:1980;406-413.
19. Kenakin T.P., Boselli C. Promiscuous or heterogeneous muscarinic receptors in rat atria? I. Schild analysis with simple competitive antagonists. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 191:1990;39-48.
20. Kenakin T.P., Cook D.A. N,N-diethyl-2-(1-pyridyl)ethylamine, a partial agonist for the histamine receptor in guinea pig ileum. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 58:1980;1210-1307.
21. 2-adrenoceptor antagonists. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 335:1997;99-105.
22. 2+ mobilization by muscarinic antagonists. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 243:1998;41-46.
23. Lew M.J., Angus J.A. Analysis of competitive agonist-antagonist interactions by nonlinear regression. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 16:1995;328-337.
24. Liu Y.J., Shankley N.P., Welsh N.J., Black J.W. Evidence that the apparent complexity of receptor antagonism by angiotensin II analogues is due to a reversible and syntopic action. Br. J. Pharmacol. 106:1992;233-241.
25. Mitchelson F. Muscarinic receptor differentiation. Pharmacol. Ther. 37:1988;357-423.
26. Paton W.D.M., Rang H.P. A kinetic approach to the mechanism of drug action. Adv. Drug Res. 3:1966;57-80.
27. Paton W.D.M., Waud D.R. The margin of safety of neuromuscular transmission. J. Physiol. 191:1967;59-90.
28. Robertson M.J., Dougall I.G., Harper D., McKechnie C.W., Leff P. Agonist-antagonist interactions at angiotensin receptors: application of a two-state receptor model. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 15:1994;364-369.
29. Schild H.O. pAx and competitive drug antagonism. Br. J. Pharmacol. 4:1949;277-280.
30. 1 muscarinic receptors stimulate rapid and prolonged phases of neuronal nitric oxide synthase activity: involvement of different calcium pools. J. Neurochem. 71:1998;487-497.