This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JdanR. Peer reviewers: SamLovesScience, J dotter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Functional Selectivity" broaden "the conventional definition of pharmacology"? --JWSchmidt 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can we have a nice functional list of some examples of agonists? i believe it would be helpful, while also lengthening this article. --Alveolate 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are simply too many to list in general. Rather than break it down here, it should be done on receptor pages. I recently updated the list of agonists and antagonists for acetylcholine receptors on the acetylcholine page.--Carlwfbird 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agonists, inverse agonists, antagonists, functional selectivity. There are too many variations in individual definitions of all of these. I often hear inverse agonists being described as antagonists by knowledgable people in pharmacology, because when they were educated, there was nothing other than the on / off dogma associated with the terms. The problem in clarification extends too to binding sites of receptors. There should be a difference in name between agonists which work at the same binding site of a receptor and those which do not. I hereby motion that we raise this issue, whether it be here on wikipedia or in a conference to discuss this issue so that the confusion does not continue into the future.--Carlwfbird 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? I know that the term does link etymologically back, but a chemical agonist is not a "contestant".

Agonists are part of stimulus-response loops. Perhaps a link in the 'See Also' section to the nervous system or similar cause and effect system would be helpful to students and researchers.

Partial agonists can act as antagonists, as in the presence of agonists....as in reads like they are the same agonist=partial agonist. The point I was originally trying to make is ...in the presence of an agonist... when both agonist and partial agonist are present... 140.203.12.241 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When both an agonist and partial agonist are present they both compete for the same binding site. A partial agonist occupied receptor would be less activated then a full agonist occupied receptor. The partial agonist is antagonising the action of the full agonist (but not completely abolishing its (full agonists) activity). 140.203.12.241 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with their actions - I was trying to clean up the sentence grammatically, using "as [in the presence of a full agonist]" to mean "since [in the presence of a full agonist]" - but I can see how that could be ambiguous. I have changed it a bit more, adding some of what you wrote above (since it was a run-on sentence as previously written); I also tried to clarify why it behaved as a competitive antagonist for the less familiar reader. Let me know what you think. Best, St3vo 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes that spells it out perfectly.Lilypink 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Hey if you wanted you could also help edit the antagonist article also. It up for a pharmacolgy collaboration of the week this week!! see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Receptor_antagonist[reply]

Rather basic question: So are reuptake inhibitors classified as agonists, or not? I gather, not, but if so, it might be nice to make the distinction here. There's no page on "reuptake inhibitors" as a general class so don't look for an answer (or try to place an answer) there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.244.245 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a review of naming of articles with the keywords "agonism" and "agonist" in order to improve accessibility via the disambiguation page and, therefore, general searches on these two words as well as more immediate subject area identification from some of the articles' names themselves.

I propose that this article be renamed, "Agonist (biochemical)".

Please see my section 1n "Talk:Agonist (disambiguation) 'Add link to article "Physiological agonism and antagonism" and review Agonism/Agonist article naming'".

Assuming there are no contrary opinions or improved suggestions within a couple of weeks, I'll go ahead and make these proposed changes.Hedles (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]