There must be lots of papers on this as I'm pretty sure that I read my
fair share of this kind of thing over 20 years ago (several in my
division were leaders in the field at the time). I would have thought
this would be pretty standard neurochemisty/neuropharmacology textbook
stuff these days as the drug companies must have accumulated no end of
this sort of data. Surely a literature search on relative binding
affinities monoamines would throw plenty up - even on the web?
Whilst I have due respect for such work in its right place, I agree with
Glen and his colleague, that in a lot of *behavioural* neuroscience it
often looks pretty suspect, as all sorts of inferences are drawn from in
vitro studies, or data which comes from other sources. People often
don't appreciate the extent to which they are just pouring stuff into a
horrifically complex chemical soup. I personally found working with HPLC
and (earlier), radiometric assays, a nightmare. However, if you find out
what the reliable relative affinities are, please let us know, just be
sure to make the 'ceteris paribus' conditions clear - that's where, in
my view, so much mischief is insidiously done.
In article <a78398a4e3e12793a9900e3043955708 at news.teranews.com>, Glen M.
Sizemore <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> writes
>Hmmm......then you are going to have to examine the papers closely, and see
>which one you are going to believe (can't help you here, I'm just a whole
>animal behavior/behavioral pharmacology kinda guy). A former colleague of
>mine used to complain about a lot of the data from binding and
>autoradiography etc. saying that many people did not understand what they
>were doing and so were terribly prone to accident. He called them "kit
>>"BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns94956C4FD5BB5BilZ0rhotmailcom at 220.127.116.11...>> Reuptake transporter = Reuptake carrier, and Although I've never heard it
>> before, presumabley they are all the same as the reuptake receptor.
>>>> What I am after is a single experiment that quantifies, either in terms
>> of EC50s, or Ki/d/m (whatever) the affinity for those various
>> amphetamines for the 5-HT reuptake transporter/carrier/receptor and the
>> dopamine transporter/carrier/receptor. The reason why Im after the
>> affinities in one paper, is that I find wildely varying affinities from
>> one paper to the next.
>>>> David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:99WQuKIuR
>> $MAFwOg at longley.demon.co.uk:
>>>> > I once worked with DSP-4 (N-2-chloroethyl-N-ethyl-2-bromobenzylamine
>> > hydrochloride) as an alternative to 6-OHDA) whilst looking at forebrain
>> > NE' (and other monomaines') role in various aspects of learning. It
>> > looks like the term "transporter" is being used here as a synonym for
>> > (presynaptic) "reuptake receptor". Is that the case? I used to use DMI,
>> > 5-7 DHT, but not MDMA in control groups. I thought these ligands were
>> > somewhat dirty and bound to lots of receptors - is this what you're
>> > interested in, ie their relative affinities (sorry if this has all been
>> > said earlier).
>> > This is really a trivial question for my benefit, as I expect matters
>> > have moved on considerably since my day (although I do try to keep up
>> > with some of it).