“…trihexyphenidyl (anity pro®le as compiled from Lazareno et al, 1990;DoÈ rje et al, 1991;Waelbroeck et al, 1992;Bognar et al, 1992;Doods et al, 1993;Onali et al, 1994 being M 1 (9.0) = M 4 (8.8) 4 M 3 (8.3) 4 M 2 (7.8)) and tropicamide (M 4 (7.8) 4 M 1 (7.3) = M 2 (7.2) = M 3 (7.2); Lararenzo et al, 1990;Doods et al, 1993;Lazareno & Birdsall, 1993;Rinken, 1995). It was found that trihexyphenidyl behaved like the M 3 selective compounds, yielding a pK B value (7.64+0.10, n=12, estimated with concentrations ranging from 0.03 ± 1.0 mM, slope of the Schild plot 1.15+0.09, n=3) that resembled M 2 but not M 3 or M 4 anities; by contrast, tropicamide yielded a pK B value (6.57+0.06, n=14, 0.3 ± 30 mM, slope 1.03+0.03) that was actually too low to correlate to any known muscarinic receptor subtype, behaviour which is reminiscent of trihexyphenidyl in rabbit iris sphincter and rabbit ear artery (Bognar et al, 1992;Darroch et al, 1992). Clearly, these compounds do not support a characterization of the muscarinic receptors mediating contraction of the guinea-pig lung strip as M 4 .…”