Agonist‐induced desensitisation of β<sub>3</sub>‐adrenoceptors: Where, when, and how?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
β3‐Adrenoceptor agonists have proven useful in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome, but it is not known whether their efficacy during chronic administration may be limited by receptor‐induced desensitisation. Whereas the β2‐adrenoceptor has phosphorylation sites that are important for desensitisation, the β3‐adrenoceptor lacks these; therefore, it had been assumed that β3‐adrenoceptors are largely resistant to agonist‐induced desensitisation. While all direct comparative studies demonstrate that β3‐adrenoceptors are less susceptible to desensitisation than β2‐adrenoceptors, desensitisation of β3‐adrenoceptors has been observed in many models and treatment settings. Chimeric β2‐ and β3‐adrenoceptors have demonstrated that the C‐terminal tail of the receptor plays an important role in the relative resistance to desensitisation but is not the only relevant factor. While the evidence from some models, such as transfected CHO cells, is inconsistent, it appears that desensitisation is observed more often after long‐term (hours to days) than short‐term (minutes to hours) agonist exposure. When it occurs, desensitisation of β3‐adrenoceptors can involve multiple levels including down‐regulation of its mRNA and the receptor protein and alterations in post‐receptor signalling events. The relative contributions of these mechanistic factors apparently depend on the cell type under investigation. Which if any of these factors is applicable to the human urinary bladder remains to be determined. Linked Articles This article is part of a themed section on Adrenoceptors—New Roles for Old Players. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v176.14/issuetoc
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".