Talk:5-HT1A receptor

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maybe get inspiration from the [french version]

Guys i am quite not sure what to think now, but i have found in many scientific papers that Methysergide (UML-491) is is an antagonist at 5-HT1A receptor and yet at this receptor page i see it in agonist group o.O i know its partial agonist at few others 5-HT receptors, but i am quite sure its not an agonist at 5-HT1A receptor. Tomáš Rusnok (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on methysergide agrees with you. Please feel free to fix the article, and any other errors you may spot. (I have some doubts that we really ought to have these long lists of agonists and antagonists in the first place.) Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended but this article reads like a sales pitch for 5-HT1A drugs. it does not include the possible risks or dangers of activating the 5-HT1A receptors or risks of the drugs, it only how great these drugs are in reducing anxiety and depression. 50.47.100.224 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, in contrast to SRAs, 5-HT1A receptor agonists do not bypass the inhibitory effect of 5-HT1A receptors located as heteroreceptors in non-serotonergic synapses where 5-HT1A postsynaptic receptors are not present, which, instead of serotonin, modulate the release of other neurotransmitters such as dopamine or glutamate. The therapeutic consequences of this difference, if any, are unknown."

This part is problematic for several reasons: 1.) It makes a factual statement (or actually several) without a citation: "... do not bypass the inhibitory...". I assume this is taken from one of the sources already cited, but it is not clear which one. 2.) The definition of the term "heteroreceptor" is inconsistent with the one in the linked Wikipedia article: As I write this, the heteroreceptor article defines heteroreceptors as postsynaptic receptors as opposed to autoreceptors. This is a definition commonly used in the literature. Using this definition the quoted part would be a contradiction in itself, refering to synapses with 5-HT1A heteroreceptors but without 5-HT1A postsynaptic receptors, while both terms are actually understood as refering to the same group of receptors. 3.) Finally, although this might be nitpicking, it may be unclear in the context of 2.), how a synapse can be "non-serotonergic" if it actually has 5HT receptors. See the linked definition of the term "serotonergic" in the respective Wikipedia article.

Trying to make sense of this, I can only assume, that the phrase refers to the activation of somatodendritic 5-HT1A receptors on "neighbouring" neurons that are not directly linked (postsynaptic) to the synapse where 5HT was released via some kind of spillover of 5HT from the synapse of origin. I do not know whether this can actually occur in a physiological setting and thus would ask for a citation here. Also it is unclear how either SRAs or 5-HT1A agonists should "bypass" such receptors, as both the presence of 5HT (released by an SRA) and the presence of an alternative agonist will symply activate the receptor (unless the drug shows some functional specificity). As the logical plausibility of this claim is not evident from the information availabnle in this and related articles, such a statement would require more elaboration as well as a source.

I have been trying to find a literature source for the statements in question and will continue to look for one. For the meantime, I would however opt to remove the quoted paragraph for the above reasons until the issue has been clarified.

212.101.58.116 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]