Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Pharmacological Activities of Buprenorphine and Norbuprenorphine: Norbuprenorphine Is a Potent Opioid Agonist

Huang, Peng, Kehner, George B., Cowan, Alan, Liu-Chen, Lee-Yuan·2001·The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Abstract

Buprenorphine (BUP) is an oripavine analgesic that is beneficial in the maintenance treatment of opiate-dependent individuals. Although BUP has been studied extensively, relatively little is known about norbuprenorphine (norBUP), a major dealkylated metabolite of BUP. We now describe the binding of norBUP to opioid and nociceptin/orphanin FQ (ORL1) receptors, and its effects on [(35)S]guanosine-5'-O-(gamma-thio)triphosphate ([(35)S]GTP gamma S) binding mediated by opioid or ORL1 receptors and in the mouse acetic acid writhing test. Chinese hamster ovary cells stably transfected with each receptor were used for receptor binding and [(35)S]GTP gamma S binding. NorBUP exhibited high affinities for mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptors with K(i) values in the nanomolar or subnanomolar range, comparable to those of BUP. NorBUP and BUP had low affinities for the ORL1 receptor with K(i) values in the micromolar range. In the [(35)S]GTP gamma S binding assay, norBUP displayed characteristics distinct from BUP. At the delta-receptor, norBUP was a potent full agonist, yet BUP had no agonist activity and antagonized actions of norBUP and DPDPE. At mu- and kappa-receptors, both norBUP and BUP were potent partial agonists, with norBUP having moderate efficacy and BUP having low efficacy. At the ORL1 receptor, norBUP was a full agonist with low potency, while BUP was a potent partial agonist. In the writhing test, BUP and norBUP both suppressed writhing in an efficacious and dose-dependent manner, giving A(50) values of 0.067 and 0.21 mg/kg, s.c., respectively. These results highlight the similarities and differences between BUP and norBUP, each of which may influence the unique pharmacological profile of BUP.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3565(24)29586-0

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Huang, P., Kehner, G. B., Cowan, A., & Liu-Chen, L.-Y.
Venue
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-05
Volume
297
Issue
2
Pages
688-695
ISSN
0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154237001
Cited by
340
References
2
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Pharmacological Activities of Buprenorphine and Norbuprenorphine: Norbuprenorphine Is a Potent Opioid Agonist. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-3565(24)29586-0
The paper
Huang, P., Kehner, G. B., Cowan, A., & Liu-Chen, L.-Y. (2001). Comparison of Pharmacological Activities of Buprenorphine and Norbuprenorphine: Norbuprenorphine Is a Potent Opioid Agonist. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3565(24)29586-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.