ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2002
Agonist-directed trafficking explaining the difference between response pattern of naratriptan and sumatriptan in rabbit common carotid artery.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic potential of β-arrestin- and G protein-biased agonists.Trends in molecular medicine · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. Sumatriptan or eletriptan produced vasocontraction in common carotid artery (CCA) by stimulating 5HT(1B) receptors (see also Akin & Gurdal, this issue). 2. Naratriptan as a 5HT(1B/D) agonist, was unable to produce vasocontraction in this artery, but inhibited the vasocontractile response induced by sumatriptan or eletriptan. 3. All these agonists inhibited forskolin-stimulated cyclic AMP production with comparable potencies and maximal responses. This inhibition was mediated by 5HT(1B) receptors: 5HT(1B) antagonist SB216641 (1 microM) completeley antagonized sumatriptan-, eletriptan- or naratriptan-induced cyclic AMP inhibition, but 5HT(1D) antagonist BRL15572 (1 microM) did not affect this response. 4. Naratriptan-induced stimulation of 5-HT(1B) receptors resulted only in adenylate cyclase inhibition, whereas stimulation of these receptors by sumatriptan or eletriptan produced vasocontraction as well. Hence, we concluded that the 5HT(1B)-mediated inhibition of adenylate cyclase was not a sufficient condition to couple the receptor stimulation to vasocontraction. 5. We discussed agonist-induced trafficking as a plausible mechanism for the observed phenomenon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.