2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.09.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practical guide for calculating and representing biased signaling by GPCR ligands: A stepwise approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(30 reference statements)
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The concentration response curves of each compound were fitted to the Black–‐Leff operational model described by (Nagi and Pineyro ):reponse=false[Anfalse]italicτnEm[A]nitalicτn+(false[normalAfalse]+KnormalA)n,where [A] is the agonist concentration, the maximal response of the system is given by E m , n is a fitting parameter for the slope, the affinity of the agonist is represented by the equilibrium dissociation constant of the agonist‐receptor complex ( K A ), and the efficacy of the agonist is defined by τ . τ and K A are descriptive parameters of intrinsic efficacy and binding affinity and may be directly obtained by fitting experimental data to the operational equation and can be expressed as “transduction coefficients” log( τ / K A ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The concentration response curves of each compound were fitted to the Black–‐Leff operational model described by (Nagi and Pineyro ):reponse=false[Anfalse]italicτnEm[A]nitalicτn+(false[normalAfalse]+KnormalA)n,where [A] is the agonist concentration, the maximal response of the system is given by E m , n is a fitting parameter for the slope, the affinity of the agonist is represented by the equilibrium dissociation constant of the agonist‐receptor complex ( K A ), and the efficacy of the agonist is defined by τ . τ and K A are descriptive parameters of intrinsic efficacy and binding affinity and may be directly obtained by fitting experimental data to the operational equation and can be expressed as “transduction coefficients” log( τ / K A ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The concentration response curves of each compound were fitted to the Black--Leff operational model described by (Nagi and Pineyro 2016):…”
Section: Data Analysis and Terminologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bias factors were calculated by choosing the standard NOP agonist N/OFQ, as standard unbiased ligand. The concentration response curves of each compound were fitted to the Black-Leff operational model described in Nagi and Pineyro (2016): italicresponse=false[Anfalse]τnEmfalse[Afalse]nτn+false(false[Afalse]+KAfalse)n where [A] is the agonist concentration, the maximal response of the system is given by E m , n is a fitting parameter for the slope, the affinity of the agonist is represented by the equilibrium dissociation constant of the agonist-receptor complex (K A ), and the efficacy of the agonist is defined by τ. τ and K A are descriptive parameters of intrinsic efficacy and binding affinity and may be directly obtained by fitting experimental data to the operational equation and can be expressed as “transduction coefficients” log(τ/K A ). The relative efficiency of agonists producing activation of any pathways can thus be quantified with a “normalized” transduction coefficient, namely Δlog(τ/K A ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The operational model developed by Black and Leff (1983) has been proposed as an analytical tool to estimate such a parameter in the form of the transduction coefficient (log)t/K A , where t is the ligand's efficacy and K A is its "functional affinity," corresponding to the theoretical affinity the ligand would have for the active state(s) of the receptor responsible for the response (Black and Leff, 1983;Rajagopal et al, 2011;Kenakin and Christopoulos, 2013;Onaran et al, 2014). A detailed account of the steps involved in obtaining these parameters from experimental data has been presented elsewhere, both from a general theoretical viewpoint (Kenakin et al, 2012;Kenakin, 2015) and within the context of DOPr signaling (Charfi et al, 2014Nagi and Pineyro, 2016). Here, we will mention two aspects in relation to the quality of information provided by quantitative approaches compared with identification of ligand bias through comparison of single maximal responses.…”
Section: A Conceptualization Of Biased Signalingmentioning
confidence: 99%