Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Low Intrinsic Efficacy Alone Cannot Explain the Improved Side Effect Profiles of New Opioid Agonists

Stahl, Edward L., Bohn, Laura M.·2022·Biochemistry
DOI 10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00466

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract In a recent report in Science Signaling (DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.aaz3140), it was suggested that low intrinsic agonism, and not biased agonism, leads to an improvement in the separation of potency in opioid-induced respiratory suppression versus antinociception. Although many of the compounds that were tested have been shown to display G protein signaling bias in prior publications, the authors conclude that since they cannot detect biased agonism in their cellular signaling studies the compounds are therefore not biased agonists. Rather, they conclude that it is low intrinsic efficacy that leads to the therapeutic window improvement. Intrinsic efficacy is the extent to which an agonist can stimulate a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) response in a system, while biased agonism takes into consideration not only intrinsic efficacy, but also potency of an agonist in an assay. Herein, we have re-analyzed the data presented in the published work (DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.aaz3140) (including the recent Erratum: DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.abf9803) to derive intrinsic efficacy and bias factors as ΔΔlog(τ/K A ) and ΔΔlog(Emax/EC 50 ). Based on this reanalysis, the data support the conclusion that biased agonism, favoring G protein signaling, was observed. Moreover, a conservation of rank order intrinsic efficacy was not observed upon comparing responses in each assay, further suggesting that multiple active receptor states were present. These observations agree with prior studies wherein oliceridine, PZM21 and SR-17018 were first described as biased agonists with improvement in antinociception over respiratory suppression in mice. Therefore, the data in the Science Signaling manuscript does provide strong corroborating evidence that G protein signaling bias may be a means to improve opioid analgesia while avoiding certain undesirable side effects.

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 · 10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00466

Cites

51 of 51 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

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Huang P., 2001, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 297, 688
  2. Sadee W., 1982, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 223, 157

Metadata

Authors
Stahl, E. L., & Bohn, L. M.
Venue
Biochemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2021-09-01
Volume
61
Issue
18
Pages
1923-1935
ISSN
  • 0006-2960
  • 1520-4995
DOI
10.1021/acs.biochem.1c00466
Cited by
55
References
51
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA033073, DA038964)

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

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.