4.7 Review

Efficacy and ligand bias at the μ-opioid receptor

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 169, Issue 7, Pages 1430-1446

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bph.12222

Keywords

efficacy; intrinsic efficacy; GPCR; mu-opioid receptor; ligand bias

Funding

  1. MRC UK [G0600943]
  2. BBSRC [BB/D012902/1]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J003506/1, BB/D012902/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [G0600943] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. BBSRC [BB/J003506/1, BB/D012902/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [G0600943] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to describe drug action at a GPCR, a full understanding of the pharmacological terms affinity, efficacy and potency is necessary. This is true whether comparing the ability of different agonists to produce a measurable response in a cell or tissue, or determining the relative ability of an agonist to activate a single receptor subtype and produce multiple responses. There is a great deal of interest in the mu-opioid receptor (MOP receptor) and the ligands that act at this GPCR not only because of the clinically important analgesic effects produced by MOP agonists but also because of their liability to induce adverse effects such as respiratory depression and dependence. Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying these effects, as well as the ability to develop new, more effective MOP receptor drugs, depends upon the accurate determination of the efficacy with which these ligands induce coupling of MOP receptors to downstream signalling events. In this review, which is written with the minimum of mathematical content, the basic meaning of terms including efficacy, intrinsic activity and intrinsic efficacy is discussed, along with their relevance to the field of MOP receptor pharmacology, and in particular in relation to biased agonism at this important GPCR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available