↓ Skip to main content

A Practical Guide to Approaching Biased Agonism at G Protein Coupled Receptors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Practical Guide to Approaching Biased Agonism at G Protein Coupled Receptors
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaimee Gundry, Rachel Glenn, Priya Alagesan, Sudarshan Rajagopal

Abstract

Biased agonism, the ability of a receptor to differentially activate downstream signaling pathways depending on binding of a "biased" agonist compared to a "balanced" agonist, is a well-established paradigm for G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. Biased agonists have the promise to act as smarter drugs by specifically targeting pathogenic or therapeutic signaling pathways while avoiding others that could lead to side effects. A number of biased agonists targeting a wide array of GPCRs have been described, primarily based on their signaling in pharmacological assays. However, with the promise of biased agonists as novel therapeutics, comes the peril of not fully characterizing and understanding the activities of these compounds. Indeed, it is likely that some of the compounds that have been described as biased, may not be if quantitative approaches for bias assessment are used. Moreover, cell specific effects can result in "system bias" that cannot be accounted by current approaches for quantifying ligand bias. Other confounding includes kinetic effects which can alter apparent bias and differential propagation of biological signal that results in different levels of amplification of reporters downstream of the same effector. Moreover, the effects of biased agonists frequently cannot be predicted from their pharmacological profiles, and must be tested in the vivo physiological context. Thus, the development of biased agonists as drugs requires a detailed pharmacological characterization, involving both qualitative and quantitative approaches, and a detailed physiological characterization. With this understanding, we stand on the edge of a new era of smarter drugs that target GPCRs.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 20%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 42 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 21%
Chemistry 22 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 7%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 50 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#19,947,956
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,671
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,322
of 422,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#118
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.