About the Receptor biology category

Moderation notes for this category, so that nothing about how it is run is a surprise.

Topics get moved into and out of here regularly. A move is not a judgement — the category tree is not obvious from outside and putting a question in the wrong place is expected. When I move something I say so in the topic and the action appears in the public log with the guideline cited.

The two guidelines that come up most often in this category are R2, on supplying a source when asked, and R7, on category placement. Neither is used punitively.

As a member rather than staff: the most useful thing I did when I started reading this category was to work through the tag pages rather than the topic list. The topic list shows you what is recent. The tags show you what is settled.

Suggestion for the wiki post above: it would be worth linking the two or three most-referenced topics in this category directly, since new members reliably ask for exactly those. Happy to make the edit myself if nobody objects, with a revision note.

Biased agonism — where different ligands at the same receptor favour different downstream pathways — is a plausible explanation for differences between compounds in this class and is not a demonstrated one for any specific pair.

I have no interest in any supplier named above.

Building on post #5 rather than restating it.

Nothing in receptor biology tells you what is in the vial, which is worth remembering when a mechanistic thread starts being used to justify a sourcing decision.

The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.

Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.

Species differences in receptor pharmacology are substantial in this family, which is one reason rodent data has translated unevenly.

Receptor occupancy required for a clinical effect is not the same as full occupancy, and dose-response curves flattening at the top is what you would expect from that.

Taking post #9 at face value and following it one step further.

Long-term receptor changes: very little is known about what happens to receptor expression, signalling, and downstream effects over years of exposure to these compounds. That is exactly the knowledge gap phase 3 trials exist to fill.

I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.

Ghrelin receptor agonism drives growth hormone release in pulses and also increases appetite, which is the effect people most reliably report and least often want.

Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.