Cited by 574Anesthesia and Sedative AgentsAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do general anaesthetics act by competitive binding to specific receptors?

Franks, N. P., Lieb, W. R.·1984·Nature

Abstract

Most proteins are insensitive to the presence of anaesthetics at concentrations which induce general anaesthesia, while some are inhibited by certain agents but not others. Here we show that, over a 100,000-fold range of potencies, the activity of a pure soluble protein (firefly luciferase) can be inhibited by 50% at anaesthetic concentrations which are essentially identical to those which anaesthetize animals. This identity holds for inhalational agents (such as halothane, methoxyflurane and chloroform), aliphatic and aromatic alcohols, ketones, ethers and alkanes. This finding is all the more striking in view of the fact that the inhibition is shown to be competitive in nature, with anaesthetic molecules competing with substrate (luciferin) molecules for binding to the protein. We show that the anaesthetic-binding site can accommodate only one large, but more than one small, anaesthetic molecule. The obvious mechanism suggested by our results is that general anaesthetics, despite their chemical and structural diversity, act by competing with endogenous ligands for binding to specific receptors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/310599a0

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Middleton, A. J. & Smith, E. B. Proc. R. Soc. B193, 159–171 (1976).
  2. Middleton, A. J. & Smith, E. B. Proc. R. Soc. B193, 173–190 (1976).
  3. Seeman, P. Pharmac. Rev. 24, 583–655 (1972).
  4. Miller, K. W., Paton, W. D. M., Smith, R. A. & Smith, E. B. Molec. Pharmac. 9, 131–143 (1973).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 574

Metadata

Authors
Franks, N. P., & Lieb, W. R.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
Nature
Published
1984-08
Volume
310
Issue
5978
Pages
599-601
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2028401432
Cited by
572
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 22
FWCI
24.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
general anesthetics, competitive binding, firefly luciferase, protein inhibition, competitive inhibition, inhalational anesthetics, halothane, methoxyflurane, chloroform
MeSH terms
Hexanols, Anesthesia, General, Anesthetics, Animals, Coleoptera, Binding Sites, Binding, Competitive, Fatty Alcohols, Halothane, Kinetics, Luciferases, Molecular Conformation, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation

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