↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the binding of the A-1 selective adenosine radioligand, cyclopentyladenosine (CPA), to rat brain tissue

Overview of attention for article published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, February 1986
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of the binding of the A-1 selective adenosine radioligand, cyclopentyladenosine (CPA), to rat brain tissue
Published in
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, February 1986
DOI 10.1007/bf00511410
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Williams, Albert Braunwalder, Thomas J. Erickson

Abstract

The binding of [3H]-Cyclopentyladenosine (CPA), an N6-substituted analog of adenosine, was examined in vitro. CPA bound with high affinity (Kd = 0.48 nmol/l) to rat brain membranes. Specific binding, which represented 90-97% of the total counts bound at a ligand concentration of 1 nmol/l, was saturable, reversible and sensitive to protein denaturation. The pharmacology of binding was consistent with the labeling of an A-1 receptor, the R- and S-diasteromers of N6-phenylisopropyladenosine (PIA) showing a sixteenfold difference in their ability to displace CPA. The prototypic A-1 selective adenosine agonist, N6-cyclohexyladenosine (CHA) was twofold less active than CPA in displacing radiolabeled CPA. Comparison of the ability of cold CHA and CPA to displace [3H]-CPA gave rate dissociation constants of 1.88 and 1.80 X 10(4) s-1, respectively suggesting that both CHA and CPA bound to the same recognition site. In contrast however, comparison of the binding of [3H]-CPA with that of [3H]-CHA showed distinct differences. The Kd for CHA was approximately twice that of CPA while the apparent Bmax was 60% greater. In comparing the pharmacology of CPA binding with that of CHA, it was found that CHA, S-PIA and the antagonist, PACPX were more active in displacing CHA than CPA. In general however, CPA has a binding profile very similar to that observed with CHA.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Student > Bachelor 5 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 22%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Chemistry 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2013.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology
#347
of 1,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,973
of 41,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,724 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 41,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.