Cited by 283Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudySmoking Behavior and CessationNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Noncompetitive functional inhibition at diverse, human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes by bupropion, phencyclidine, and ibogaine

Fryer, John D., Lukas, Ronald J.·1999·The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Abstract

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) are diverse members of the neurotransmitter-gated ion channel superfamily and play critical roles in chemical signaling throughout the nervous system. The present study establishes the acute functional effects of bupropion, phencyclidine, and ibogaine on two human nAChR subtypes. Function of muscle-type nAChR (alpha1 beta gamma delta) in TE671/RD cells or of ganglionic nAChR (alpha3 beta4 alpha5+/-beta2) in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells was measured with 86Rb+ efflux assays. Functional blockade of human muscle-type and ganglionic nAChR is produced by each of the drugs in the low to intermediate micromolar range. Functional blockade is insurmountable by increasing agonist concentrations in TE671/RD and SH-SY5Y cells for each of these drugs, suggesting noncompetitive inhibition of nAChR function. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that nAChR are targets of diverse substances of abuse and agents used in antiaddiction/smoking cessation strategies. We also hypothesize that nAChR play heretofore underappreciated roles in depression and as targets for clinically useful antidepressants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3565(24)37928-5

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Three trials directly comparing bupropion and nortriptyline showed no significant differences, and the pooled odds ratio, though favouring bupropion, was non-significant (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.3).

    “Three trials have directly compared bupropion and nortriptyline (98–100). None showed significant differences and the pooled odds ratio, though favouring bupropion, was non significant (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9, 2.3).”

    From Tobacco addiction (2008) · cites this paper as [100]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fryer, J. D., & Lukas, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Barrow Neurological Institute (US)
  • St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-01
Volume
288
Issue
1
Pages
88-92
ISSN
0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1912050742
Cited by
283
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, non-competitive inhibition, bupropion, phencyclidine, ibogaine, muscle-type nAChR, 86Rb efflux, SH-SY5Y cells, smoking cessation, antidepressant targets, depression, substance abuse
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Cell Line, Humans, Ibogaine, Phencyclidine, Receptors, Nicotinic, Tumor Cells, Cultured, Bupropion, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors

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