Talk:Mu Opioid receptor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Deleted section implying that mu1 activation does not cause respiratory depression and that mu2 activation does not cause analgesia. Only reference was a page from "opioids.com" referring to a book printed over ten years ago. If they can find peer reviewed evidence that mu1 agonists do not cause respiratory depression (ha, ha), I think it should remain gone. Sakurada et al 1999 Differential involvement of μ-opioid receptor subtypes in endomorphin-1- and -2-induced antinociception, European J Pharm for one showed that mu2 are involved in analgesia.
edit: in fact, it looks like the page doesn't even mention the putative mu1 and 2 subtypes. Whoever wrote that part didn't understand the format of the table and thought there were 6 mu receptors, each with a different specific function! Isn't anyone watching this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.10 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, this whole page could do with a rewrite by someone more in touch with the opioid field; I'd do it but I don't have the time right now. This article is filled with inaccuracies and relies disproportionately on this concept of mu receptor subtypes which are not widely considered important and are largely based on ancient binding work from one lab. If someone is watching this article I strongly advise it be flagged "needs editing" or whatever denotes a bad article. Scientific articles on wikipedia should be held to a better standard than this. 160.62.4.10 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this field myself, and I found it very technical in nature. What I've noticed is that many articles that are inherently technical also have information that is easier to understand for the everyday person. So in the end I only recognized a little bit of what this article was talking about, but if somebody knows more about it I'm sure they could make it more readable for people not in this field. --shenron (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
