OK, I found this. Does this suffice?
Antagonists only exert their actions in the presence of agonists,
but have no activity of their own in the absence of agonists. Still
other drugs do the opposite of agonists, and are calles inverse
drugs acting at a receptor exist in a spectrum from full agonist to
antagonist to inverse agonist.
Michael Bracey wrote:
> Hello all.
>> Let me preface this with the disclaimer and apology that I have had no
>> pharmacology. With that said, what is the difference between an
> antagonist and an inverse agonist? The best distinction I've been
> to muster is that an antagonist could not suppress the tonic level of
> stimulation of an unliganded receptor but an inverse agonist could.
> this on the right track? I've not found any definition for this term
> anywhere I've looked.
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>bracey at scripps.edu