Talk:Adrenergic receptor

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Re: Cleanup. There's a lot of info at Basic Neurochemistry: α- and β-Adrenergic Receptors to be incorporated into this article. We might also need sources for the order of agonist activity! Micha 08:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the adrenergic receptors and their activity blocks half of the table describing each receptor and its targets/actions. I'm not tech-savvy enough to format the picture to fit, perhaps someone else is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.32.54 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of affinities

I don't trust the given order of affinities (see e.g. edit by 130.15.183.214 on 06:31, 24 April 2006 [1]) and I can't find a good source to back them up. So, I've moved them here. Micha 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source for the potencies and have tabulated them with a reference. Hope this helps. 86.141.193.9 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noradrenaline>Adrenaline>Phenylephrine order of potency for alpha-1

β-Adrenergic receptors: Agonist affinity: isoprenaline > adrenaline > noradrenaline

The stated affinities are incorrect. According to Goodman & Gillman's The Pharmocological Basis of Therapeutics, Chapter 6, pg. 164 and 166 (Table 6-6):

alpha-1: Epi >* Norepi >> Isoproterenol

alpha-2: Epi >* Norepi >> Isoproterenol

beta-1: Isoproterenol > Epi = Norepi

beta-2: Isoproterenol > Epi >> Norepi

beta-3: Isoproterenol = Norepi > Epi

* These should be "greater than or equal to" signs.

I have stricken the statement from the original page regarding the affinities.

The stated affinities are still incorrect, see Rang & Dales's Pharmacology, 6th edition, pg. 168 (2007)

alpha: Noradrenaline > adrenaline > isoproterenol

beta: isoproterenol > adrenaline > noradrenaline

This makes also much more sence from a physiological point of view. --129.67.118.241 (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isoprenaline is not a selective alpha agonist - reference to this has been removed. 82.25.249.189 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can have two varients of this webpage. One with the UK terms, one with the US terms. I believe epinepherine and norepinepherine are more widely used.--Carlwfbird 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disclaimer at the top would be sufficient. I've always studied using the US terms, but I don't mind the UK terms at all since we're taught that they're the same thing. 70.104.126.213 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

It beats me as to why they would be called Adrenaline and Noradrenaline in the intro and images, but then the first sentence starts talking about epinephrine and norepinephrine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.66 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline and noradrenaline are the UK terms & epinephrine and norepinephrine are the respective US equivalents. But can I think the above does raise the point that to people unfamiliar with this these pharmacological synonyms it is confusing. I know there is a note in the introductory paragraph, but I think it would be much better to standardize all the references on the page and have a more visible disclaimer at the start. thoughts? --Dylan2106 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to use the different terms interchangeably in the article as long as it is clearly defined at the start that they are one and the same. The literature mixes them up all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.181.44 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phenoxybenzamine & Phenotolamine

I was under the impression that these are nonselective alpha-antagonists. Yet, they are listed under a1 but not a2 antagonists...any reason for that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.158.170 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Ok, the intro paragraph is so full of jargon I can't go a third of a sentence without being utterly lost. Now, granted Cellular biology is not my field but people in the field would have more precise definitions anyway so can someone who can make heads or tails out of this article fix at least the intro portion so the rest of us can have an idea of what's going on when another article mentions it? thanks 131.151.90.222 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison Table and US vs International terminology

Granted that there is the whole epinephrine vs adrenaline America vs the rest of the world thingy. But the article is called Adrenergic receptors (not epineherinergic receptors), it would seem intuitive to utilise adrenaline/noradrenaline throughout the article, but that is just my personal opinion.

In any case day uniformity would have to be preferable to using the terms interchangably throughout the article. Yes it is clear in the opening paragraph explaining the terms mean the same thing, but for the remainder of the article one set of terminology should be used. An example of the ridiculousness of it is comparison table, the agonist potency column is listing the American terminology, while the Agonists column is utilising the International terminology. 49.2.10.223 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in Categories figure

The figure in Categories and its caption state or imply that a catecholamine binding to a beta receptor causes heart muscle contraction, which is does not. Catecholamine binding to the beta receptor increases adenylyl cyclase activity, which increases cAMP activity which increases PKA activity which phosphorylates phospholamban decreasing its inhibition of SERCA2a. Since SERCA2a is less inhibited, it returns CA2+ to the sarcoplasmic reticulum faster, meaning the heart muscle relaxes faster, meaning heart rate can increase, which it does. MultiPoly (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but at the same time the PKA activity phosphorylates Ca²⁺ channels causing increased Ca²⁺ influx and therefore, amongst other changes, an increase in the peak contractile force. So, they increase peak contraction force (so they are inotropes), but also increases the rate of relaxation - i.e. they exhibit Lusitropy.Klbrain (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adrenergic receptor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Propranolol is listed in the table (which is mostly quite helpful) as a b-2 blocker, however, I believe it is considered a non-selective blocker (also blocks b-1, but I am not sure about b-3).Kayakmaster (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Dompamine missing -> isoprenaline inappropriately placed.

The first column of the table showing action of catechols lists isoprenaline as though if were a natural catechol rather than listing it as an agonist. Dopamine is missing completely despite being an agonist of Adrenergic receptors. Leopardtail (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]