Talk:Cannabinoid receptor

Untitled
cannabinoid receptors

add non-cb1/cb2 receptor
add non-cb1/cb2 receptor--Goldengrape 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes
-- Panoramix303 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Small Text
 * A reference for CB2 and intestine was inserted
 * The Nature reference is now in the proper format
 * The phrase 'need for selective ligands' was deleted as there are plenty of CB2-selective ligands now
 * The heading pharmakokinetics was changed to Signaling as pharmakokinetics are something else.
 * A reference for a new cannabinoid receptor was included
 * Several possible for cannabinoid agonists and antagonists were added

technical template
I feel I have a pretty good grasp on general neuropharmacology but a lot of the questions I had about cannabinoid recepters were unanswered for me, or I felt might have been available if some of the wording was more explanatory. Some sentences just made bland technical assertions without any context, such as "For instance, in the liver, activation of the CB1 receptor is known to increase de novo lipogenesis,[6]" -- please compare this with a much better sentence (though still not perfect): "They also displayed suppressed locomotor activity as well as hypoalgesia (decreased pain sensitivity)." 174.99.120.127 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So go ahead and fix it! :) -- &oelig; &trade; 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article
The scope of this article is wider than human cannabinoid receptors (see and ). IMHO this article falls more within the scope of WP:MCB / WP:SCIRS than WP:MED / WP:MEDRS. As long as animal studies are clearly marked as such and no medical claims are being made, they should be allowed in this article. Boghog (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with restoring them if you think its the better option, though I think it'd be preferable to group all the animal studies in their own section, sort of like TAAR. My only concern is that uninformed readers will erroneously assume that animal receptors are representative of those in humans if there's no distinction.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Physiology section needs work
While I'm sure the content of the Physiology section is scientifically accurate, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Accuracy is important but so is communication. The real purpose of a general Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is to elucidate a subject. I would like to understand the Physiology of cannabinoid receptors and I'm not stupid, but I am a lay person and could use just a bit more of a layman's explanation. Thanks! FatBear1 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence, specifically "cannabinoid receptor system"
The opening line: "Cannabinoid receptors are part of the cannabinoid receptor system[...]" seems redundant, maybe even circular. The way this is written, I'd think cannabinoid receptors are a subset of cannabinoid receptor systems. If that's the case I'd imagine there would be an article specifically describing the system or at least some clarification in this article. "cannabinoid receptor system" is mentioned exactly once here. Sudopeople (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cannabinoid receptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108013656/http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php to http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718033850/http://www.zi-mannheim.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redakteure/psychopharma/De_Fonseca_2008.pdf to http://www.zi-mannheim.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redakteure/psychopharma/De_Fonseca_2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107223341/http://www.endocannabinoid.net/ to http://www.endocannabinoid.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Effects of pre-natal cannabis use
Currently worded as:
 * Prenatal cannabis exposure (PCE) has been shown to perturb the fetal endogenous cannabinoid signaling system. This pertubation has not been shown to directly effect neurodevelopment nor causelifelong cognitive, behavioral, or functional abnormalities, but it may predispose offspring to abnormalities in cognition and altered emotionality from post-natal factors. . Additionally, PCE may alter the wiring of brain circuitry in foetal development and cause significant molecular modifications to neurodevelopmental programs that may lead to neurophysiological disorders and behavioural abnormalities.

Please discuss if you have any issues here with the wording before wholesale deleting. I have also moved it to the signalling section where it is relevant. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 02:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

History? No review, editor's synthesis
This edit on history was reverted because the content is the editor's own interpretation of history (WP:SYNTH), rather than a WP:RS review guiding what is history. All of the sources are from primary research, and are not aggregated in a review to confirm this is the actual history. Because this content addresses neurochemistry and potential neurological functions of cannabinoid receptors, a WP:MEDRS-quality systematic review is the standard needed. --Zefr (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * History of science is an encyclopedic subject and is outside the scope of WP:MEDRS. I would agree that secondary source are preferred and I will find them so that section can be restored. You need to be more careful in quoting Wikipedia polices and guidelines to those that actually apply to the given situation. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)  The three of the four sources that were removed are all highly cited and the fourth is a review:


 * – Cited by 5534
 * – Cited by 5080
 * – review Cited by 396
 * – Cited by 5534
 * Hence in addition to citing review articles, I think the original citations should also be included. Boghog (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the history section with secondary sources. This section expanded further based on the review articles already included (for example multiple groups cloned the receptor at about the same time). Boghog (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The main reviews offered are Elphick (2001) and Pertwee (2006) which - although 1-2 decades out of date from now, as there are no recent reviews on the history of receptor discovery - should be the main sources on discovery of CB receptors. Elphick, Pertwee, and other authors differ on what research team and what year(s) discovery of receptors actually occurred (e.g., Lawrence, Howlett, Pfizer, Pertwee), indicating specific discussion as proposed by editor about the St. Louis, NIH and Jerusalem groups was that editor's synthesis of events, WP:SYNTH. Neither Elphick nor Pertwee lay out the history of discovery that way, and the specificity of credit given certain labs is debatable and inconsistent, incurring WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6. In addition, the edit by Ethel the aardvark was carelessly written and poorly formatted, so needed trimming and rework to state the basics, as I have done with this edit. --Zefr (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to more carefully read Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you quote them. Case in point is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6. There was no teaching through examples going on here, just presentation of facts. All the research discoveries mentioned were highly cited, and therefore clearly notable. The problem was that there were other notable events in the history of cannabinoid receptor research that were not mentioned. So at worst, Ethel's contributions were incomplete, not wrong.  The way to fix that is to add the missing notable events supported by reliable secondary sources so that the history is complete, not delete the entire contribution. Ethel's contributions were made in good faith.  Your deletion was not. Boghog (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mistake 'number of citations' as important instead of high-quality reviews which are the encyclopedic source of choice. NOTTEXTBOOK was correctly invoked for details not related to general history - which is described differently among review authors - but for the editor (with your apparent approval) selecting isolated primary cases, needlessly highlighting academic affiliations, and missing general facts, while making a mess of syntax and format. The original revert was brought to the talk page for WP:BRD and consensus on content improvements, WP:CON. You've made no content edits. Let's allow other editors to weigh in on the history and discovery content before further changes are made to the general one highlighting reviews that I made today. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason that secondary sources are preferred is to establish notability and reliability. A high number of citations strongly implies that the sources are both notable and reliable and this was confirmed by the secondary sources that I added. Your knee jerk reaction is to delete when in fact there is strong reason to believe that the material in question is both reliable and notable. Think before you delete. Tagging with section is far more appropriate that deleting the entire history section. "Making a mess of syntax and format" or "needlessly highlighting academic affiliations" is also no excuse for deletion.  Relevant guidelines in this context are WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE. You need to change your attitude. I will make substantial content contributions to this section this weekend when I have more time. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I still do not see how WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies. The problem with the added text was not that it was teaching or was overly technical, but instead it was hyping of institutions and individuals. That can easily be fixed through copyedit.  Boghog (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)