Principles: Receptor theory in pharmacology

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 186-192

  Kenakin, Terry ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADRENOMEDULLIN RECEPTOR; ALCURONIUM; ALPHA 2 ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR; BETA 2 ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR; BRADYKININ RECEPTOR; CALCITONIN; CANNABINOID 1 RECEPTOR; CHEMOKINE; DRUG RECEPTOR; GHRELIN; GUANINE NUCLEOTIDE BINDING PROTEIN; HISTAMINE H2 RECEPTOR; HISTAMINE H3 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; LIGAND; METHADONE; MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR; OPIATE PEPTIDE; OPIATE RECEPTOR; PHEROMONE RECEPTOR; PHOSPHOLIPASE C; RECEPTOR; RECEPTOR ACTIVITY MODIFYING PROTEIN; RIMONABANT;

ALLOSTERISM; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG RECEPTOR BINDING; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; MOLECULAR MODEL; NONHUMAN; OLIGOMERIZATION; PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FUNCTION; REVIEW; SIMULATION; THERMODYNAMICS;

HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACOLOGY; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED;

EID: 1942517868     PISSN: 01656147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2004.02.012     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Clark, A.J. (1937) General Pharmacology: Heffter's Handbuch d. exp. Pharmacology (Ergband 4), Springer.
2. Clark A.J. The Mode Of Action Of Drugs On Cells. 1933;Edward Arnold.
3. Maehle A.-H., et al. The emergence of drug receptor theory. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1:2002;637-641.
4. Holmstedt B., Liljestrand G. Readings in Pharmacology. 1981;Raven Press.
5. Ariens E.J. Affinity and intrinsic activity in the theory of competitive inhibition. I. Problems and theory. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther. 99:1954;32-49.
6. Stephenson R.P. A modification of receptor theory. Br. J. Pharmacol. 11:1956;379-393.
7. Ariens E.J. Molecular Pharmacology. Vol. 1:1964;Academic Press.
8. Colquhoun D. The relationship between classical and cooperative models for drug action. Rang H.P. Drug Receptors. 1973;149-182 University Park Press.
9. Ehlert F.J. Estimation of the affinities of allosteric ligands using radioligand binding and pharmacological null methods. Mol. Pharmacol. 33:1988;187-194.
10. Furchgott R.F. The use of β-haloalkylamines in the differentiation of receptors and in the determination of dissociation constants of receptor-agonist complexes. Harper N.J., Simmonds A.B. Advances in Drug Research. Vol. 3:1966;21-55 Academic Press.
11. Furchgott R.F. The classification of adrenoreceptors (adrenergic receptors). An evaluation from the standpoint of receptor theory. Blaschko H., Muscholl E. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology: Catecholamines. Vol. 33:1972;283-335 Springer-Verlag.
12. Gaddum, J.H. (1937) The quantitative effects of antagonistic drugs. J. Physiol. 89, 7P-9P.
13. MacKay D. A critical survey of receptor theories of drug action. Van Rossum J.M. Kinetics of Drug Action. 1977;255-322 Springer-Verlag.
14. Paton W.D.M. A theory of drug action based on the rate of drug-receptor combination. Proc. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 154:1961;21-69.
15. Paton W.D.M., Rang H.P. The uptake of atropine and related drugs by intestinal smooth muscle of the guinea-pig in relation to acetylcholine receptors. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 163:1965;1-44.
16. Schild H.O. Drug antagonism and pAx. Pharmacol. Rev. 9:1957;242-246.
17. Arunlakshana O., Schild H.O. Some quantitative uses of drug antagonists. Br. J. Pharmacol. 14:1959;48-58.
18. Van Rossum J.M. Limitations of molecular pharmacology. Some implications of the basic assumptions underlying calculations on drug-receptor interactions and the significance of biological drug parameters. Adv. Drug Res. 3:1966;189-223.
19. Waud D.R. Pharmacological receptors. Pharmacol. Rev. 20:1968;49-88.
20. Black J.W., Leff P. Operational models of pharmacological agonist. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 220:1983;141-162.
21. Kenakin T.P. Predicting therapeutic value in the lead optimization phase of drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2:2003;429-438.
22. Katz B., Thesleff S. A study of the 'desensitization' produced by acetylcholine at the motor end-plate. J. Physiol. 138:1957;63-80.
23. Del Castillo J., Katz B. Interaction at end-plate receptors between different choline derivatives. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 146:1957;369-381.
24. Monod J., et al. On the nature of allosteric transitions: a plausible model. J. Biol. Chem. 12:1965;88-118.
25. Karlin A. On the application of a "plausible model" of allosteric proteins to the receptor for acetylcholine. J. Theor. Biol. 16:1967;306-320.
26. Thron C.D. On the analysis of pharmacological experiments in terms of an allosteric receptor model. Mol. Pharmacol. 9:1973;1-9.
27. DeLean A., et al. A ternary complex model explains the agonist-specific binding properties of adenylate cyclase coupled β-adrenergic receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 255:1980;7108-7117.
28. Limbird L.E., Lefkowitz R.J. Agonist induced increase in apparent β-adrenergic receptor size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 75:1978;228-232.
29. Ross E.M., et al. Relationship between the β-adrenergic receptor and adenylate cyclase. J. Biol. Chem. 252:1977;5761-5775.
30. Paton W.D.M. On becoming a pharmacologist. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 26:1986;1-22.
31. Costa T., Herz A. Antagonists with negative intrinsic activity at δ-opioid receptors coupled to GTP-binding proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 86:1989;7321-7325.
32. Kenakin T.P. Efficacy as a vector: the relative prevalence and paucity of inverse agonism. Mol. Pharmacol. Sci. 65:2004;2-11.
33. 2-adrenergic receptor: Extending the ternary complex model. J. Biol. Chem. 268:1993;4625-4636.
34. Kenakin T.P. Ligand-selective receptor conformations revisited: the promise and the problem. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 24:2003;346-354.
35. Weiss J.M., et al. The cubic ternary complex receptor-occupancy model. I. Model description. J. Theor. Biol. 178:1996;151-167.
36. 3H-Naloxone benzoylhydrazone binding in MOR-1-transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells: Evidence for G-protein- dependent antagonist binding. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 286:1998;376-381.
37. Monczor F., et al. Tiotidine, a histamine H2 receptor inverse agonist binds with high affinity to an inactive G-protein-coupled form of the receptor. Experimental support for the cubic ternary complex model. Mol. Pharmacol. 64:2003;512-520.
38. Stefan C.J., et al. Mechanisms governing the activation and trafficking of the Yeast G-protein-coupled receptors. Mol. Biol. Cell. 9:1998;885-899.
39. Vasquez C., Lewis D.L. The CB1 cannabinoid receptor can sequestor G-proteins, making them unavailable to couple to other receptors. J. Neurosci. 19:1999;9271-9280.
40. Bouaboula M., et al. A selective inverse agonist for central cannabinoid receptor inhibits mitogen-activated protein kinase activation stimulated by insulin or insulin-like growth factor. J. Biol. Chem. 272:1997;22330-22339.
41. Onaran H.O., Costa T. Agonist efficacy and allosteric models of receptor action. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 812:1997;98-115.
42. Onaran H.O., et al. A look at receptor efficacy. From the signaling network of the cell to the intramolecular motion of the receptor. Kenakin T.P., Angus J.A. The Pharmacology of Functional, Biochemical, and Recombinant Systems Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Vol. 148:2000;217-280 Springer.
43. Kenakin T.P. Efficacy at G protein coupled receptors. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 42:2002;349-379.
44. Kenakin T.P. Pharmacological proteus? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 16:1995;256-258.
45. 2-adrenergic receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 50:1996;662-666.
46. 2A- adrenoceptors. Mol. Pharmacol. 53:1998;963-968.
47. Fathy D.B., et al. Spontaneous human B2 bradykinin receptor activity determines the action of partial agonists as agonists or inverse agonists. J. Biol. Chem. 274:1999;29603-29606.
48. Holst B., et al. High constitutive signaling of the Ghrelin receptor-identification of a potent inverse agonist. Mol. Endocrinol. 17:2003;2201-2210.
49. 3 receptors. Br. J. Pharmacol. 135, 383-392.
50. Kenakin T.P. Inverse, protean, and ligand-selective agonism: matters of receptor conformation. FASEB J. 15:2001;598-611.
51. MacKinnon A.C., et al. Bombesin and substance P analogues differentially regulate G-protein coupling to the bombesin receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 276:2001;28083-28091.
52. Takasu H., et al. Amino-terminal modifications of human parathyroid hormone (PTH) selectively alter phospholipase C signaling via type 1 PTH receptor: Implications for design of signal-specific PTH ligands. Biochemistry. 38:1999;13453-13460.
53. Yu, Y. et al. (1997) μ Opioid receptor phosphorylation, desensitization, and ligand efficacy. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28869-28874.
54. McLatchie L.M., et al. RAMPs regulate the transport and ligand specificity of the calcitonin-receptor-like receptor. Nature. 393:1998;333-339.
55. Rees S., et al. GPCR drug discovery through the exploitation of allosteric drug binding sites. Receptors Channels. 8:2002;261-268.
56. Jakubik J., et al. Activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors via their allosteric binding sites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:1996;8705-8709.
57. Moore J.P., et al. Co-Receptors for HIV-1 entry. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 9:1997;551-562.
58. Nagasaw T., et al. Defects of B-cell lymphopoiesis and bone-marrow myelopoiesis in mice lacking the CXC chemokine PBSF/SDF-1. Nature. 382:1996;635-638.
59. Heveker N., et al. Dissociation of the signalling and antiviral properties of SDF-1 derived small peptides. Curr. Biol. 8:1998;369-376.
60. Jordan B.A., Jordan L.A. G-protein coupled receptor heterodimerization modulates receptor function. Nature. 399:1999;697-700.