A range of ligands displayed agonism at the long isoform of the human dopamine D 2 receptor, whether using receptor-G protein fusions or membranes of cells in which pertussis toxinresistant mutants of individual G␣ i -family G proteins could be expressed in an inducible fashion. Varying degrees of efficacy were observed for individual ligands as monitored by their capacity to load [35 S]GTP␥S onto each of G␣ i1 , G␣ i2 , G␣ i3 , and G␣ o1 . By contrast, (S)-(Ϫ)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine was a partial agonist when G␣ o1 was the target G protein but an antagonist/inverse agonist at G␣ i1 , G␣ i2 , and G␣ i3 . In ligand binding assays, dopamine identified both high-and lowaffinity states at each of the dopamine D 2 receptor-G protein fusion proteins, and the high-affinity state was eliminated by guanine nucleotide. (S)-(Ϫ)-3-(3-Hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine bound to an apparent single state of the constructs in which the D 2 receptor was fused to G␣ i1 , G␣ i2 , or G␣ i3 . However, it bound to distinct high-and low-affinity states of the D 2 receptor-G␣ o1 fusion, with the high-affinity state being eliminated by guanine nucleotide. Likewise, although dopamine identified guanine nucleotide-sensitive high-affinity states of the D 2 receptor when expression of pertussis toxin-resistant forms of each of G␣ i1 , G␣ i2 , G␣ i3 , and G␣ o1 was induced, (S)-(Ϫ)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine identified a high-affinity site only in the presence of G␣ o1 . p-Tyramine displayed a protean ligand profile similar to that of (S)-(Ϫ)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine but with lower potency. These results demonstrate (S)-(Ϫ)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-N-propylpiperidine to be a protean agonist at the D 2 receptor and may explain in vivo actions of this ligand.A large number of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are able to generate a variety of intracellular signals, and for those with a rich pharmacology of synthetic small-molecule ligands, it has often been possible to observe differential pharmacology for individual end points (Perez and Karnik, 2005). This has resulted in an appreciation that different ligands may stabilize distinct conformational states of GPCRs (Kenakin, 2001;Perez and Karnik, 2005) and in an expansion of the simple "active" or "inactive" "two-state" model (Leff, 1996) of GPCR function into "three-state" models (Leff et al., 1997) and subsequent chemical and physical considerations of GPCRs that allow the potential for an essentially unlimited number of states (Milligan and IJzerman, 2000;Vauquelin and Van Liefde, 2005). Although GPCRs are defined by their capacity to activate heterotrimeric G proteins, a number of ligand-induced signals seem not to require G protein interactions (Wei et al., 2003;Gesty-Palmer et al., 2006). In the case of the  2 -adrenoceptor, for example, such separation of signal transduction has resulted in the identification of ligands that can be defined as inverse agonists for their effects on adenylyl cyclase activity but as agonists for their capacity...