The Fifth Edition of the ‘Guide to Receptors and Channels’ is a compilation of the major pharmacological targets divided into seven sections: G protein‐coupled receptors, ligand‐gated ion channels, ion channels, catalytic receptors, nuclear receptors, transporters and enzymes. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside suggestions for further reading. Available alongside this publication is a portal at http://www.GuideToPharmacology.org which is produced in close association with NC‐IUPHAR and allows free online access to the information presented in the Fifth Edition.
The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY (GtoPdb, www.guidetopharmacology.org) and its precursor IUPHAR-DB, have captured expert-curated interactions between targets and ligands from selected papers in pharmacology and drug discovery since 2003. This resource continues to be developed in conjunction with the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (IUPHAR) and the British Pharmacological Society (BPS). As previously described, our unique model of content selection and quality control is based on 96 target-class subcommittees comprising 512 scientists collaborating with in-house curators. This update describes content expansion, new features and interoperability improvements introduced in the 10 releases since August 2015. Our relationship matrix now describes ∼9000 ligands, ∼15 000 binding constants, ∼6000 papers and ∼1700 human proteins. As an important addition, we also introduce our newly funded project for the Guide to IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY (GtoImmuPdb, www.guidetoimmunopharmacology.org). This has been ‘forked’ from the well-established GtoPdb data model and expanded into new types of data related to the immune system and inflammatory processes. This includes new ligands, targets, pathways, cell types and diseases for which we are recruiting new IUPHAR expert committees. Designed as an immunopharmacological gateway, it also has an emphasis on potential therapeutic interventions.
This article updates the guidance published in 2015 for authors submitting papers to British Journal of Pharmacology (Curtis et al., 2015) and is intended to provide the rubric for peer review. Thus, it is directed towards authors, reviewers and editors. Explanations for many of the requirements were outlined previously and are not restated here. The new guidelines are intended to replace those published previously. The guidelines have been simplified for ease of understanding by authors, to make it more straightforward for peer reviewers to check compliance and to facilitate the curation of the journal's efforts to improve standards.
Linked EditorialsThis Editorial is part of a series. To view the other Editorials in this series, visit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12956/abstract; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12954/abstract; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12955/abstract and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.13112/abstract
We recommend that any citations to information in the Guide are presented in the following format:Alexander SPH, Mathie A, Peters JA (2008). Guide to Receptors and Channels (GRAC), 3rd edn. Br J Pharmacol 153 (Suppl. 2): S1-S209.
Reproducibility is a current concern for everyone involved in the conduct and publication of biomedical research. Recent attempts testing reproducibility, particularly the reproducibility project in cancer biology published in elife (https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology), have exposed major difficulties in repeating published preclinical experimental work. It is thought that some of these difficulties relate to uncertainty about the provenance of tools, lack of clarity in methodology and use of inappropriate approaches for analysis; the latter particularly related to untoward manipulation of images. In the past, some of these so-called untoward practices were considered the 'norm'; however, today, the landscape is different. The expectations, not only of the readers of the published scientific word but also of the publishers and funders of research, have changed. This collective group now expects that any published data should be reproducible; but for this to be possible, experimental detail, confirmation of selectivity and quality of reagents/ tools, analytical and statistical methods used need to be described adequately. Two powerful methodologies often used to support researchers' findings allow the detection of changes in protein expression, that is, immunoblotting (widely known as Western blotting) and immunohistochemistry. Undeniably, as a result of unintentional mistakes (often related to lack of antibody specificity; Baker, 2015), but, in some cases, deliberate alterations and questionable interpretations of results, the use of these two methods has led to many high profile retractions. Indeed, such images have driven the retractions that have occurred in BJP over the last two years.Today, immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry serve as primary methodologies for the detection and quantification of molecular signalling pathways and identification of therapeutic targets. This necessitates clear guidance for the application of these techniques, the need for controls (both positive and negative) and the most appropriate methods for quantification. Indeed, this need has spawned a number of initiatives to support researchers in assessing the validity of antibody resources including antibodypedia (Bjorling and Uhlen, 2008) and the resources available within 'The Human Protein Atlas' (Thul et al., 2017). The aim of this article is to outline the rationale for, and the expectations of, the BJP with respect to work published in the Journal that includes immunoblotting or immunohistochemical data. In creating these guidelines, our aim is to reduce potential misinterpretations and to maximise the communication and transparency of essential information, particularly with respect to the methodologies employed.We have generated the guidelines below for the benefit of authors, editors and reviewers. While we recognise other recently published guidelines (Uhlen et al., 2016) and indeed we have incorporated some of the advice provided in such reports, we focus, here, on th...
The Concise Guide to PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20 is the fourth in this series of biennial publications. The Concise Guide provides concise overviews of the key properties of nearly 1800 human drug targets with an emphasis on selective pharmacology (where available), plus links to the open access knowledgebase source of drug targets and their ligands (http://www.guidetopharmacology.org/), which provides more detailed views of target and ligand properties. Although the Concise Guide represents approximately 400 pages, the material presented is substantially reduced compared to information and links presented on the website. It provides a permanent, citable, point‐in‐time record that will survive database updates. The full contents of this section can be found at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14748. G protein‐coupled receptors are one of the six major pharmacological targets into which the Guide is divided, with the others being: ion channels, nuclear hormone receptors, catalytic receptors, enzymes and transporters. These are presented with nomenclature guidance and summary information on the best available pharmacological tools, alongside key references and suggestions for further reading. The landscape format of the Concise Guide is designed to facilitate comparison of related targets from material contemporary to mid‐2019, and supersedes data presented in the 2017/18, 2015/16 and 2013/14 Concise Guides and previous Guides to Receptors and Channels. It is produced in close conjunction with the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification (NC‐IUPHAR), therefore, providing official IUPHAR classification and nomenclature for human drug targets, where appropriate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2023 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.