Talk:Functional selectivity

Untitled
"and that this characteristic will be consistent with all effector systems coupled to that receptor" Can you point to a published source for the "dogma" that this is part of the definition of agonists and antagonists? --JWSchmidt 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

=We need a Pluto Talk= Agonists, inverse agonists, antagonists, functional selectivity. There are too many variations in individual definitions of all of these. I often hear inverse agonists being described as antagonists by knowledgable people in pharmacology, because when they were educated, there was nothing other than the on / off dogma associated with the terms. The problem in clarification extends too to binding sites of receptors. There should be a difference in name between agonists which work at the same binding site of a receptor and those which do not. I hereby motion that we raise this issue, whether it be here on wikipedia or in a conference to discuss this issue so that the confusion does not continue into the future.--Carlwfbird 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead is way weak
Somebody wants to understand what selectivity means in biochemistry, resorts to Wikipedia, and is treated to this introductory passage:


 * "Functional selectivity (or 'agonist trafficking', 'biased agonism', 'ligand bias', and 'differential engagement' ) is the ligand-dependent selectivity..."

Hint: circular definitions are a bad thing. I'd fix this lead myself if I weren't one of the people resorting to Wikipedia to understand what selectivity means in biochemistry.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)