Talk:GABAA-rho receptor

Move
I took the liberty of moving GABA C receptor to GABAC receptor since that way the proper name can show up in the title with the downsize template. I assumed that this would be an uncontroversial move and that there would be no problems with it, but if there are definitely let me know. Thanks, delldot | talk 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
I noticed that some of the text in the article was a copyright violation from here. I tried to reword or remove all of the copyvio content I found, but I may have missed some. Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could check to determine whether my rewording is far enough from the original that it's not a problem anymore. The material was in the section entitled "GABAC receptors". Thanks, delldot | talk 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
Excellent work expanding and cleaning up the page, Boghog2! I took down the tootechnical tag and made a few other tweaks as well. Here is one sentence I thought was still pretty technical (though, admittedly, we're dealing with a very obscure subject here, so some of that can't be avoided): In contrast to the fast and transient chloride current elicited from GABAA, GABAC receptors mediate slow and sustained responses. I think we could make stuff more accessible by just defining our terms for the lay reader.

Also, I noticed that some info was removed, e.g. the "genetics" section. I was curious why it was removed, since it seemed like ok info to me. If the reason was that it was too technical, maybe we could reword the material rather than removing it outright. Would it be OK to add it back in? Anyway, thanks for the fixup, Boghog2! delldot  talk  18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Per your suggestions, the sentence that describes the differences between GABAC and GABAA chloride current characteristics has been reworded. Also a revised form of the genetics section has been re-added.  Thanks for the helpful suggestions Delldot!  Boghog2 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance?
Would pharmacological agents exploiting this receptor be subject to the same tolerance effects as those which use the GABA-A receptor (e.g. traditional benzodiazepenes)? If not, please provide an explanation and a source. This would be useful to know. Relatedly, there is talk of a non-addictive drug (emapunil), which is a novel mitochondrial benzodiazepine receptor (MBR) ligand. See: http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2010/01/possible_new_nonaddictive_anti.php Maybe start a new page on this? --1000Faces (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. First of all, just to clarify, the target of emapunil and XBD173 is the translocator protein (also known as the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor or the mitochondrial benzodiazepine receptor).  The potential of these drugs to have less side effects than benzodiazepines that act through the GABAA receptor is briefly mentioned here.  The mechanism of action of classical benzodiazpines and these newer translocator protein ligands is completely different and therefore it is possible that the later will have less addiction potential.  However these are very recent research results and as far as I know, there is no definitive evidence as yet to prove or disprove that these drugs will have less addictive potential in humans.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)