The quantitative comparison of the relative potency of agonists is a standard method of receptor and agonist classification. If agonist potency ratios do not correspond in two given tissues, this is used as presumptive data to conclude that the receptors in those two tissues are different. This article presents data to show that a single receptor can demonstrate varying agonist potency ratios in different host cells. These data are described in terms of the production of more than one agonist-selective receptor active state and the interaction of these different active states with multiple G proteins in the membrane to produce cellular response. Stable host human embryonic kidney 293 cells with enhanced quantities of the respective Galpha-protein were created. Wild-type and Galpha-subunit enriched cells were then transiently transfected with human calcitonin receptor type 2 (hCTR2). Binding did not detect differences in the G protein-enriched cells versus wild-type cells. In contrast, functional studies did show differences between the host cell lines and Galpha-subunit enriched cell lines. The relative potency of eight calcitonin agonists was measured in studies of calcium fluorescence in transfected cells containing human calcitonin receptor type 2 by comparing pEC(50) (-log molar concentration producing half-maximal response) values. In Galphas-enriched cells, the relative order of potency of the agonists changed. The host-cell dependent differences in potency ratios ranged from 2-fold to more than 46-fold. This finding is not consistent with the idea that all of the agonists produce response in the same manner (i.e., through a common active state of the receptor). These data are consistent with the idea that these different agonists produce arrays of active states that differentially use G proteins. This idea is discussed in terms of the design of stimulus-bias assay systems to detect agonist-selective receptor active states with resulting potential for increased selectivity of agonists.
Background and Objective: Most melanomas (including melanomas in situ), in Australasia, are treated by general practitioners (GPs). Previously undescribed, the characteristics of a series of melanomas treated by multiple GPs are examined.Patients and Methods: Six hundred and thirtyseven melanomas treated by 27 Australasian GPs during 2013 and documented on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD) were analysed by anatomical site, subtype, Breslow thickness, diameter, associated naevi and linked adverse outcomes.Results: Most melanomas (59.7%) were on males, mean age at diagnosis being 62.7 years (range 18-96). Most (65.0%) were in situ, with a high incidence of lentiginous melanoma (LM) (38.8%) and 32% were naevus associated. Most LM (86.4%) were in situ, compared to 55% of superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) (P < 0.0001). There was male predominance on the head, neck and trunk and female predominance on extremities. There was no significant association between Breslow thickness and diameter, with small melanomas as likely to be thick as large melanomas, and melanomas ≤3 mm diameter, on average, more likely to be invasive than larger melanomas. There was a positive correlation between age and both melanoma diameter and Breslow thickness. Seven cases progressed to melanomaspecific death: Five nodular melanoma (NM) and two SSM, one of which was thin (Breslow thickness 0.5 mm).Conclusions: A large series of melanomas treated by Australasian GPs were predominantly in situ, with a high proportion of LM subtype. With implications for GP training, NM linked to death was overrepresented and there was a novel finding that older patients had larger diameter melanomas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.