International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. XXXVIII. Update on Terms and Symbols in Quantitative Pharmacology

Pharmacological Reviews

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 597-606

  Neubig, Richard R ^a   Spedding, Michael ^b   Kenakin, Terry ^c   Christopoulos, Arthur ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b INSTITUT DE RECHERCHES INTERNATIONALES SERVIER   (France)

^c GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG RECEPTOR BINDING; EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANT; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY; RECEPTORS, DRUG; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION;

EID: 0345490945     PISSN: 00316997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1124/pr.55.4.4     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Arunlakshana O and Schild HO (1959) Some quantitative uses of drug antagonists. Br J Pharmacol 14:48-58.
2. Berg KA, Maayani S, Goldfarb J, Scaramellini C, Leff P, Clarke WP (1998) Effector pathway-dependent relative efficacy at serotonin type 2A and 2C receptors: evidence for agonist-directed trafficking of receptor stimulus. Mol Pharmacol 54:94-104.
3. Black JW and Leff P (1983) Operational models of pharmacological agonism. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 220:141-162.
4. 2-receptor antagonists on the mouse isolated stomach assay. Br J Pharmacol 86:581-587.
5. Brink CB, Wade SM, and Neubig RR (2000) Agonist-directed trafficking of porcine α2A-adrenergic receptor signaling in Chinese hamster ovary cells: 1-isoproterenol selectively activates Gs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 294:539-547.
6. Christopoulos A (1998) Assessing the distribution of parameters in models of ligand-receptor interaction: to log or not to log. Trends Pharmacol Sci 19:351-357.
7. Christopoulos A and Kenakin T (2002) G protein-coupled receptor allosterism and complexing. Pharmacol Rev 54:323-374.
8. Colquhoun D (1987) Affinity, efficacy and receptor classification: is the classical theory still useful? in Perspectives on Receptor Classification: Receptor Biochemisty and Methodology (Black JW, Jenkinson DH, and P. Gerskowitch V, eds) vol. 6, pp. 103-114, Alan R. Liss, New York.
9. Cheng Y and Prusoff W (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (150) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22:3099-3108.
10. Del Castillo J and Katz B (1957) Interaction at end-plate receptors between different choline derivatives. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 146:369-381.
11. Delean A, Stadel JM, and Lefkowitz RJ (1980) A ternary complex model explains the agonist-specific binding properties of the adenylate cyclase-coupled β-adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 255:7108-7117.
12. Furchgott RF (1966) The use of β-haloalkylamines in the differentiation of receptors and in the determination of dissociation constants of receptor-agonist complexes. Adv Drug Res 3:21-55.
13. Gaddum JH (1043) Introductory address. Part I. Biological aspects: the antagonism of drugs. Trans Faraday Soc 39:323-332.
14. Kenakin T (1995) Agonist-receptor efficacy. II. Agonist trafficking of receptor signals. Trends Pharmacol Sci 16:232-238.
15. Kenakin TP (1997) Pharmacologic Analysis of Drug-Receptor Interaction, 3rd ed, Raven Press, New York.
16. Kenakin T and Onaran O (2002) The ligand paradox between affinity and efficacy: can you be there and not make a difference? Trends Pharmacol Sci 23:275-280.
17. Lazareno S and Birdsall NJM (1993) Estimation of competitive antagonist affinity from functional inhibition curves using the Gaddum, Schild and Cheng-Prusoff equations. Br J Pharmacol 109:1110-1119.
18. Lew MJ and Angus JA (1995) Analysis of competitive agonist-antagonist interactions by nonlinear regression. Trends Pharmacol Sci 16:328-337.
19. Mills I, Cvitas T, Homann K, Kallay N, and Kuchitsu K (1993) Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry, published under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2nd ed, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
20. Motulsky H and Christopoulos A (2003) Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and Nonlinear Regression, Oxford Press, Oxford, UK, in press.
21. 2-adrenergic receptor: extending the ternary complex model. J Biol Chem 268:4625-4636.
22. Schild HO (1947) pA, a new scale for the measurement of drug antagonism. Br J Pharmacol 2:189-206.
23. x and competitive drug antagonism. Br J Pharmacol 4:277-280.
24. Spedding M, Bonner TI, and Watson SP (2002) International Union of Pharmacology. XXXI. Recommendations for the nomenclature of multimeric G protein-coupled Receptors. Pharmacol Rev 54:232-232.
25. Stephenson RP (1956) A modification of receptor theory. Br J Pharmacol 11:379-393.
26. Waud DR (1975) Analysis of dose-response curves, in Methods in Pharmacology: Smooth Muscle (Daniel and Paton, ed) vol 3, pp 471-506, Plenum Press, New York.
27. Waud DR, Son SL, and Waud BE (1978) Kinetic and empirical analysis of dose-response curves illustrated with a cardiac example. Life Sci 22:1275-1286.