Hubbry Logo
Intrinsic activityIntrinsic activityMain
Open search
Intrinsic activity
Community hub
Intrinsic activity
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Intrinsic activity
Intrinsic activity
Intrinsic activity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Efficacy spectrum of receptor ligands.

Intrinsic activity (IA) and maximal efficacy (Emax) refer to the relative ability of a drug-receptor complex to produce a maximum functional response. This must be distinguished from the affinity, which is a measure of the ability of the drug to bind to its molecular target, and the EC50, which is a measure of the potency of the drug and which is proportional to both efficacy and affinity. This use of the word "efficacy" was introduced by Stephenson (1956)[1] to describe the way in which agonists vary in the response they produce, even when they occupy the same number of receptors. High efficacy agonists can produce the maximal response of the receptor system while occupying a relatively low proportion of the receptors in that system. There is a distinction between efficacy and intrinsic activity.[clarification needed]

Mechanism of efficacy

[edit]
Ligand Description % Efficacy (E)
Superagonist Efficacy higher than the endogenous agonist E > 100
Full agonist Efficacy equal to the endogenous agonist E = 100
Partial agonist Efficacy less than the endogenous agonist 0 < E < 100
Silent antagonist Affinity but no efficacy E = 0
Inverse agonist Inverse efficacy E < 0

Agonists of lower efficacy are not as efficient at producing a response from the drug-bound receptor, by stabilizing the active form of the drug-bound receptor. Therefore, they may not be able to produce the same maximal response, even when they occupy the entire receptor population, as the efficiency of transformation of the inactive form of the drug-receptor complex to the active drug-receptor complex may not be high enough to evoke a maximal response. Since the observed response may be less than maximal in systems with no spare receptor reserve, some low efficacy agonists are referred to as partial agonists.[2] However, it is worth bearing in mind that these terms are relative - even partial agonists may appear as full agonists in a different system/experimental setup, as when the number of receptors increases, there may be enough drug-receptor complexes for a maximum response to be produced, even with individually low efficacy of transducing the response. There are actually relatively few true full agonists or silent antagonists; many compounds usually considered to be full agonists (such as DOI) are more accurately described as high efficacy partial agonists, as a partial agonist with efficacy over ≈80-90% is indistinguishable from a full agonist in most assays. Similarly many antagonists (such as naloxone) are in fact partial agonists or inverse agonists, but with very low efficacy (less than 10%). Compounds considered partial agonists tend to have efficacy in between this range. Another case is represented by silent agonists,[3] which are ligands that can place a receptor, typically an ion channel, into a desensitized state with little or no apparent activation of it, forming a complex that can subsequently generate currents when treated with an allosteric modulator.[4]

Intrinsic activity

[edit]

Intrinsic activity of a test agonist is defined as:

[5]: 24 

Stevenson's efficacy

[edit]

R. P. Stephenson (1925–2004) was a British pharmacologist.[6] Efficacy has historically been treated as a proportionality constant between the binding of the drug and the generation of the biological response.[7] Stephenson defined efficacy as:

[5]: 25 

where is the proportion of agonist-bound receptors (given by the Hill equation) and is the stimulus to the biological system.[8] The response is generated by an unknown function , which is assumed to be hyperbolic.[8] This model was arguably flawed in that it did not incorporate the equilibrium between the inactivated agonist-bound-receptor and the activated agonist-bound-receptor that is shown in the del Castillo Katz model.

Furchgott's efficacy

[edit]

Robert F. Furchgott later improved on Stephenson's model with the definition of efficacy, e, as

[8]

where is the intrinsic efficacy and is the total concentration of receptors.

Stevenson and Furchgott's models of efficacy have been criticised and many more have been developed. The models of efficacy are shown in Bindslev (2008).[9][10]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Intrinsic activity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Intrinsic activity is a core concept in that quantifies the ability of a or to activate a receptor and produce a biological response upon binding, independent of the 's affinity for the receptor. It represents the maximal effect achievable through the -receptor interaction, often denoted by the α, where full agonists have α = 1, partial agonists have 0 < α < 1, and antagonists have α = 0. This measure distinguishes drugs based on their capacity to induce conformational changes in the receptor that trigger downstream signaling, without relying on full receptor occupancy. The term was introduced by Dutch pharmacologist Everhardus J. Ariëns in 1954 as part of his theory on competitive inhibition, where he separated drug effects into affinity (binding strength) and intrinsic activity (activation potential) to explain variations in drug responses. Ariëns' framework, detailed in his seminal paper "Affinity and intrinsic activity in the theory of competitive inhibition," provided a quantitative basis for understanding agonism, allowing pharmacologists to rank compounds by their effectiveness in isolated systems. Over time, the concept evolved to incorporate nuances like inverse agonism, where ligands exhibit negative intrinsic efficacy by reducing constitutive receptor activity, refining models of receptor behavior in both in vitro and in vivo contexts. Intrinsic activity is related to but distinct from efficacy; while efficacy encompasses the overall capacity to produce a response (including tissue-specific factors and stimulus-response coupling), intrinsic activity (α) specifically quantifies the relative maximal response in a given system, reflecting the drug-receptor complex's activation potential. For instance, in opioid pharmacology, full agonists like fentanyl exhibit high intrinsic activity (α ≈ 1), producing robust analgesia, while partial agonists like buprenorphine have lower values (α ≈ 0.3–0.5), leading to a ceiling effect on euphoria and respiratory depression, which enhances their safety profile in pain management. Similarly, in beta-adrenergic antagonists, drugs with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA), such as pindolol, display partial agonist effects at beta receptors, providing baseline stimulation while blocking excessive sympathetic activity, which can benefit patients with bradycardia. Beyond pharmacology, the term occasionally appears in neuroscience to describe spontaneous neural firing or baseline activity in brain networks absent external input, such as low-frequency fluctuations in the default mode network during rest. However, this usage is less standardized and often overlaps with terms like "constitutive activity" or "resting-state activity," highlighting the pharmacological definition's dominance in scientific literature. Key applications of intrinsic activity include drug design, where optimizing α values helps develop selective agonists or antagonists for therapeutic targets like G-protein coupled receptors.

Fundamentals

Definition

In pharmacology, intrinsic activity, denoted as α or IA, measures the relative capacity of a drug-receptor complex to produce a maximal functional response compared to a full agonist in the same biological system. It is defined as the ratio of the maximum response elicited by the test agonist (E_max,test) to the maximum response elicited by a full agonist (E_max,full):
α=Emax⁡,testEmax⁡,full\alpha = \frac{E_{\max,\text{test}}}{E_{\max,\text{full}}}
This parameter, introduced by E. J. Ariëns in 1954 as part of the theory of , quantifies the drug's inherent ability to activate the receptor and generate a stimulus upon binding, independent of binding affinity. Over time, the concept has evolved to emphasize this relative efficacy in experimental contexts, though it remains system-dependent. The value of intrinsic activity classifies ligands as follows: full agonists achieve the system's maximum response and thus have α = 1; partial agonists produce a submaximal response with 0 < α < 1; competitive antagonists bind without activating the receptor, yielding α = 0; and in systems exhibiting constitutive receptor activity, inverse agonists stabilize inactive conformations, resulting in α < 0. Intrinsic activity reflects relative efficacy, the broader property denoting a ligand's capacity to shift receptors toward active states and elicit responses. In contrast, potency describes the concentration dependence of the response, typically via the EC_{50} value.

Relation to Efficacy and Potency

Efficacy refers to the absolute capacity of a receptor-ligand complex to initiate and propagate downstream signaling events, representing the intrinsic ability of the agonist to convert receptor occupancy into a biological response. In contrast, intrinsic activity (IA) serves as a relative measure, quantifying the maximal response elicited by a test agonist as a fraction of the response produced by a reference full agonist under identical conditions, typically expressed as a value between 0 and 1. This normalization distinguishes IA from absolute efficacy, allowing comparisons across ligands while accounting for system-specific variations in receptor density or coupling efficiency. Potency describes the concentration of an agonist required to achieve half of its maximal effect, commonly denoted as the EC50 value, and is a composite property shaped by both the ligand's affinity for the receptor and its or IA. Affinity, measured by the Kd, quantifies the binding strength between the ligand and receptor without implying , serving as a prerequisite for but distinct from the post-binding captured by IA. Qualitatively, potency is proportional to the product of affinity and , such that improvements in either binding tightness or signaling can enhance the observed potency. For instance, a with high IA—indicating strong relative activation potential—may exhibit low potency if its affinity is poor, requiring higher concentrations to occupy sufficient receptors for a detectable effect. Conversely, partial , which possess lower IA compared to full , often display reduced maximal responses despite potentially comparable potency. Notably, although normalized to a reference , IA remains system-dependent, varying with experimental context such as receptor expression levels, which affects cross-system comparisons.

Historical Development

Ariëns' Intrinsic Activity

Everhardus J. Ariëns (1918–2002), a Dutch pharmacologist, introduced the concept of intrinsic activity in 1954 as part of his work on and drug-receptor interactions. In his paper "Affinity and intrinsic activity in the theory of competitive inhibition," published in Arzneimittel-Forschung, Ariëns separated the pharmacological effects of drugs into affinity (related to binding strength, denoted by the dissociation constant KAK_A) and intrinsic activity (α, the ability of the bound drug to activate the receptor and produce a response). Intrinsic activity α is defined as the maximal response produced by the drug relative to a full , typically ranging from 0 (antagonists) to 1 (full agonists), with partial agonists having 0 < α < 1. This allowed for quantitative explanation of why drugs with similar affinity could elicit varying maximal effects, addressing limitations in earlier occupancy theories that assumed response proportional to receptor occupancy. Ariëns' framework was pivotal in classifying and antagonists, influencing drug design and understanding partial agonism in systems like smooth muscle responses to sympathomimetics.

Stephenson's Efficacy Concept

Robert P. Stephenson (1925–2004), a British pharmacologist, introduced the concept of efficacy as a key innovation in receptor theory through his 1956 paper "A Modification of Receptor Theory," published in the British Journal of Pharmacology. This work built on earlier models, including Ariëns' intrinsic activity, by proposing that drug action involves not only binding affinity but also an additional property determining response magnitude. Stephenson defined efficacy, denoted as ee, as the ratio of the stimulus SS—which represents the magnitude of the tissue response or effect—to the fractional receptor occupancy pp, given by the equation
e=Sp.e = \frac{S}{p}.
Here, pp is calculated using the fractional occupancy formula
p=[A][A]+KA,p = \frac{[A]}{[A] + K_A},
where [A][A] is the agonist concentration and KAK_A is the equilibrium dissociation constant of the agonist-receptor complex. This formulation quantifies the intrinsic capacity of the drug-receptor complex to generate a stimulus per unit of occupancy, explaining why agonists can elicit different maximal responses despite equivalent binding; for example, full agonists produce large stimuli even at low occupancy, while partial agonists yield smaller ones. The concept addresses a critical limitation in prior theories, such as those assuming response is directly proportional to occupancy, by highlighting that not all bound ligands equally activate receptors or downstream signaling. However, Stephenson's model assumes a linear relationship between stimulus and occupancy, treating SS as directly scaling with pp without amplification steps. It also does not account for receptor reserve, where full tissue responses can arise from partial occupancy due to excess receptors, or for equilibrium activation states involving conformational changes. Stephenson's efficacy provided a foundational measure of agonism related to Ariëns' intrinsic activity, offering an absolute scale that complemented relative comparisons of agonist stimuli to reference full agonists.

Furchgott's Intrinsic Efficacy

Robert F. Furchgott (1916–2009), an American pharmacologist, introduced the concept of intrinsic efficacy in his seminal 1966 work on adrenergic receptor interactions, building on earlier ideas to provide a more refined measure of agonist activity. Furchgott, who later received the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the role of nitric oxide in vascular relaxation, focused his mid-career research on quantitative aspects of drug-receptor interactions, particularly how agonists produce biological responses beyond mere binding. In Furchgott's model, the stimulus (S) generated by an is defined as the product of intrinsic efficacy (ε), total receptor concentration ([R]Tot), and fractional (p): S=ϵ[R]Tot pS = \epsilon [R]_{\text{Tot}} \, p Here, ε represents the intrinsic efficacy, a drug-specific quantifying the of a single receptor upon binding, independent of the tissue or . This contrasts with relative measures of intrinsic activity, as ε provides an absolute scale per receptor: ε > 0 for , ε = 0 for antagonists, and ε < 0 potentially for inverse agonists in later extensions. By incorporating [R]Tot, the model accounts for variations in receptor density across tissues, allowing ε to be estimated through irreversible receptor inactivation techniques, such as using β-haloalkylamines. This framework has practical applications in explaining receptor reserve, where agonists with high ε can elicit a maximal tissue response despite occupying only a of available receptors, due to amplification in downstream signaling. For instance, in systems like , full contractile responses to certain adrenergic agonists occur at low occupancy levels when ε is sufficiently large, highlighting how intrinsic influences apparent potency and maximal effect. Despite its foundational impact, Furchgott's model assumes a linear relationship between stimulus and simple receptor activation, which limits its applicability to modern understandings of multifaceted signaling pathways involving G-protein coupling and downstream cascades. It has been critiqued for not fully capturing system-dependent variations in , particularly in contexts with non-linear or multiple transduction mechanisms.

Theoretical Frameworks

Receptor Occupancy Theory

The receptor occupancy theory, introduced by in , forms a foundational element of early by positing that the biological effect of a drug is directly proportional to the fraction of receptors occupied by the . Clark's framework, elaborated in his 1933 monograph, assumed that receptors are discrete sites on cells that bind agonists reversibly, with the degree of occupancy determining the magnitude of the response. This theory emerged in the early as sought quantitative models to explain drug actions, building on Langmuir's adsorption isotherms and providing a mechanistic basis for dose-response relationships prior to the development of concepts. Central to Clark's model is the key assumption that all occupied receptors contribute equally to the response, with no inherent differences among ligands in their ability to activate the receptor once bound. The fractional pp is given by the equation p=[A][A]+Kd,p = \frac{[A]}{[A] + K_d}, where [A][A] is the concentration and KdK_d represents the dissociation constant, equivalent to the concentration producing half-maximal . Consequently, the effect EE follows a hyperbolic dose-response : E=Emax⁡⋅p=Emax⁡[A][A]+Kd,E = E_{\max} \cdot p = E_{\max} \frac{[A]}{[A] + K_d}, where Emax⁡E_{\max} is the maximal response achievable when all receptors are occupied. Under this model, potency is simply reflected by KdK_d, with lower values indicating higher affinity for full agonists that can elicit the full Emax⁡E_{\max}. Despite its simplicity and influence, Clark's has notable limitations, particularly in accounting for partial agonists, which produce submaximal responses even at concentrations achieving near-complete receptor . For instance, partial agonists were observed to produce submaximal responses even at near-complete receptor , challenging the assumption of uniform receptor activation and highlighting the need for ligand-specific measures to explain such discrepancies. These shortcomings spurred later refinements, such as the introduction of , to better describe agonist behavior beyond mere .

Operational Model of Agonism

The operational model of , proposed by J.W. Black and P. Leff in 1983, offers a quantitative method for directly fitting experimental agonist concentration-effect (E/[A]) curves, emphasizing an operational perspective that prioritizes measurable outcomes over detailed mechanistic assumptions. Published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, this framework integrates concepts of receptor binding and downstream to describe across various systems. Central to the model are three key parameters: the agonist-receptor KAK_A, which reflects binding affinity; the maximum possible effect EmE_m; and the ratio τ\tau, defined as τ=[R]TotϵKE\tau = \frac{[R]_{\text{Tot}} \epsilon}{K_E}, where [R]Tot[R]_{\text{Tot}} denotes total receptor concentration, ϵ\epsilon is intrinsic , and KEK_E represents the sensitivity of the effector () function to receptor stimulation. The relationship between effect and agonist concentration [A][A] is captured by : E=Emτ[A]([A]+KA)(1+τ)E = E_m \frac{\tau [A]}{([A] + K_A)(1 + \tau)} This equation enables the derivation of affinity and efficacy estimates from observed dose-response data without requiring independent measures of receptor number or transduction efficiency. A primary advantage of the model lies in its incorporation of receptor reserve, where elevated τ\tau values amplify signal transduction, shifting the E/[A] curve leftward and allowing full effects at fractional receptor occupancy—typically when spare receptors exceed 90% of total in high-efficiency systems. Conversely, the model elucidates partial agonism by low τ\tau values, which constrain the observed maximum effect Emax⁡E_{\max} below EmE_m, as the limited efficacy fails to saturate the transducer even at full occupancy; for example, when τ=1\tau = 1, Emax⁡=0.5EmE_{\max} = 0.5 E_m, and for τ<1\tau < 1, Emax⁡E_{\max} is less than 0.5Em0.5 E_m, scaling with τ1+τ\frac{\tau}{1 + \tau}. The model extends Furchgott's intrinsic efficacy ϵ\epsilon by embedding it within τ\tau, which accounts for system-dependent transducer amplification and treats intrinsic activity as a relative measure of τ\tau across assays. In practice, the operational model facilitates estimation of intrinsic activity equivalents through τ\tau via nonlinear regression fitting in specialized software, such as GraphPad Prism, which applies the equation to partial and full agonist curves while accommodating spare receptors by varying τ\tau per tissue or expression level. Post-1983 refinements, including the introduction of a slope factor nn (typically set to 1 in the core form but adjustable for cooperativity), have enhanced flexibility for non-hyperbolic curves, yet the foundational structure endures as the benchmark for agonism quantification in 2025.

Contemporary Applications

Biased and System-Dependent Efficacy

Biased agonism represents a modern extension of intrinsic activity, where ligands exhibit pathway-specific efficacy rather than uniform activation across all downstream signaling routes. In G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), for instance, certain ligands preferentially stimulate G-protein-mediated pathways while showing reduced or absent efficacy in β-arrestin recruitment, leading to divergent physiological outcomes. This phenomenon arises because intrinsic activity is not a fixed property of the ligand-receptor complex but varies depending on the signaling readout, challenging the traditional view of efficacy as a scalar value and treating it instead as vectorial across multiple pathways. The operational model of agonism provides the basis for quantifying this bias through the transduction coefficient τ, which reflects the efficiency of stimulus-response coupling for a given pathway. Bias is commonly calculated as the ratio of τ values between pathways (e.g., τ_A / τ_B), allowing researchers to numerically assess preferential signaling; this approach emerged in the early 2000s as a tool to dissect ligand selectivity beyond simple potency measures. For example, in the β2-adrenergic receptor, ligands like carvedilol demonstrate high τ for β-arrestin pathways but low τ for G-protein activation, illustrating how intrinsic activity can be pathway-dependent. System dependence further complicates intrinsic activity, as efficacy can vary significantly across biological contexts such as tissue type, receptor density, or downstream coupling efficiency. In systems with high receptor reserve, ligands with low intrinsic activity may produce full responses due to amplification, whereas the same ligands appear weak in low-reserve systems; this variability underscores that intrinsic efficacy is not solely ligand-inherent but modulated by cellular architecture. For atypical antipsychotics like aripiprazole, this manifests as partial agonism (positive efficacy) at dopamine D2 receptors in one signaling context, contrasted with inverse agonism (negative efficacy) at serotonin 5-HT2B receptors in another, highlighting pathway- and system-specific behaviors. As of 2025, biased and system-dependent efficacy remains integral to precision medicine, enabling tailored therapeutics that exploit pathway selectivity to minimize off-target effects. Recent cryo-EM structures of GPCRs in biased states, such as those revealing conformational shifts in the κ-opioid receptor bound to G-biased agonists, have integrated these concepts with atomic-level insights, supporting no major paradigm shifts but refining ligand design for context-specific signaling.

Role in Drug Design and Classification

In pharmacology, intrinsic activity (IA) serves as a key parameter for classifying ligands based on their ability to activate receptors relative to a reference full agonist, typically assigned an IA of 1. Full agonists exhibit IA = 1, producing the maximum tissue response upon receptor binding. Partial agonists have 0 < IA < 1, eliciting submaximal responses even at full receptor occupancy, which limits their efficacy in systems with high receptor reserve. Superagonists possess IA > 1, surpassing the response of endogenous ligands in certain receptor systems, as observed with peptide hormone analogs at G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Neutral antagonists display IA = 0, blocking agonists without altering basal receptor activity, while inverse agonists have IA < 0, reducing constitutive receptor signaling in systems with spontaneous activity. Protean agonists exhibit variable IA depending on the cellular context, acting as agonists in low-activity systems and inverse agonists in constitutively active ones, due to differential receptor conformation stabilization. In , IA informs the selection of ligands with tailored profiles to enhance therapeutic safety and specificity. Partial agonists are often preferred for conditions requiring controlled activation, as their ceiling effect prevents excessive signaling and reduces adverse outcomes; for instance, , a at the μ-opioid receptor (IA ≈ 0.3–0.7 relative to ), mitigates respiratory depression and overdose risk compared to full agonists like . This property arises from buprenorphine's lower intrinsic , which plateaus the dose-response curve, making it valuable for treatment. Representative examples illustrate IA's role in β-adrenergic receptor targeting for respiratory diseases. Isoproterenol acts as a full β-agonist with IA = 1, achieving maximal bronchodilation but risking due to broad cardiac stimulation. In contrast, functions as a partial agonist (IA ≈ 0.05), providing effective bronchodilation with reduced cardiac side effects like , owing to its lower in high-receptor-density tissues such as the heart. Therapeutically, IA guides dosing strategies in contexts of receptor reserve, where spare receptors allow full agonists to elicit maximal effects at low occupancy, enabling lower doses for partial agonists to achieve similar outcomes without toxicity. Biased ligands, which exhibit pathway-selective efficacy informed by IA concepts from historical models, further refine this approach; carvedilol, a β-blocker with β-arrestin-biased agonism at β2-adrenoceptors, antagonizes G protein signaling (low IA for cAMP) while promoting protective β-arrestin pathways, reducing heart failure progression. As of 2025, advances in AI-driven integrate IA predictions to identify allosteric modulators that fine-tune without direct orthosteric binding. Machine learning models analyze conformational dynamics and ligand-receptor interactions to prioritize candidates enhancing or diminishing IA at allosteric sites on GPCRs, accelerating discovery of pathway-specific drugs like positive allosteric modulators for transporters.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/intrinsic-activity
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/intrinsic-activity
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6165953/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3579279/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1977302/
  6. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/protein-biology/interrogation-protein-pathways/drug-activity-and-drug-specificity
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13229418/
  8. https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/pdfs/termsAndSymbols.pdf
  9. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1476-5381.1956.tb00006.x
  10. https://derangedphysiology.com/main/cicm-primary-exam/pharmacodynamics/Chapter-415/potency-and-efficacy
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5355565/
  12. https://tmedweb.tulane.edu/pharmwiki/doku.php/basic_principles_of_pharm
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7088946/
  14. https://www.bps.ac.uk/about/about-pharmacology/pharmacology-hall-of-fame/articles/r-p-%28-steve-%29-stephenson
  15. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02223.x
  16. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.240487
  17. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1998/furchgott/biographical/
  18. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.00605/full
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614797011383
  20. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1983.0093
  21. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14171
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016054029090066T
  23. https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/latest/curve-fitting/reg_operational_model_partialag.htm
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40993-w
  25. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45004-7
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5595354/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006295215006656
  28. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0707936104
  29. https://pure.psu.edu/en/publications/aripiprazole-a-novel-atypical-antipsychotic-drug-with-a-unique-an/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41413-025-00435-y
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64882-1
  32. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.2109060
  33. https://derangedphysiology.com/main/cicm-primary-exam/pharmacodynamics/Chapter-417/full-agonists-partial-agonists-and-inverse-agonists
  34. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12142
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12074015_Inverse_protean_and_ligand-selective_agonism_Matters_of_receptor_conformation
  36. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0301/p313.html
  37. https://psychiatry.uams.edu/clinical-care/outpatient-care/cast/buprenorphine/
  38. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c00045
  39. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.19.659764v1
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.