• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

BEST Websites to Self-Educate Psycho-Pharmacology??

Any more good book titles?

That Clinical neuroscience book layout is a nightmare.
Wall of text after wall of text - and it doesn't really go into the information I'm looking for - binding profiles and functional activity values, IC50 etc, drug interactions.

Stahls essential pharmacology is good - for me, a beginner, but I'd like to be able to compare it to another such book.

You guys are bound to know some other decent titles... no??
 
Are you speaking of the book by Nestler? That is more of a neuroscience/neuropharmacology book than a pharmacology/medicinal chemistry book. Which is not to say is a bad book, I really like it, but if you're looking for more lists of drugs and binding assays then I can't think of it off the top of my head but there is an online resource that lists drugs by receptor affinity. In other words, you can sort drugs by their pharmacological properties. For the life of me I can't remember it though.

What in particular are you wanting to know? A resource like that is probably really just getting its data from PubMed and so forth.

Edit: this might be it http://www.bindingdb.org/bind/index.jsp
 
Are you speaking of the book by Nestler? That is more of a neuroscience/neuropharmacology book than a pharmacology/medicinal chemistry book. Which is not to say is a bad book, I really like it, but if you're looking for more lists of drugs and binding assays then I can't think of it off the top of my head but there is an online resource that lists drugs by receptor affinity. In other words, you can sort drugs by their pharmacological properties. For the life of me I can't remember it though.

What in particular are you wanting to know? A resource like that is probably really just getting its data from PubMed and so forth.

Edit: this might be it http://www.bindingdb.org/bind/index.jsp

Mmm,
More so just a book similar to Stahls, but by another author, for comparative purposes.
And an actual piece of compiled published literature that contains the binding and functional activity values.
 
By example - I got a grass roots understanding of how to interpret binding profiles through other posters explanations here.

Now - IC50 values are interpreted differently to Ki values.

So, a text that would illustrate clearly how to interpret these values - that would be one such pharmacology book that I would be looking for.
 
IC50 is the same idea as Ki, except it measured the concentration for 50% inhibition of the enzyme/target protein, instead of simply measuring binding of the ligand in question. The same goes for ED50 figures - those are the concentrations needed to get 50% receptor activation.
 
IC50 is the same idea as Ki, except it measured the concentration for 50% inhibition of the enzyme/target protein, instead of simply measuring binding of the ligand in question. The same goes for ED50 figures - those are the concentrations needed to get 50% receptor activation.

Are
Are they interpreted inversely also.

i.e. - the lower value => the more potent

TargetAffinityFunctional activityPharmacodynamic action
Ki (nM)IC50 / EC50 (nM)IA (%)
SERT*1.65.4Inhibition
NET*113Inhibition
5-HT1A*1520096Agonist
5-HT1B*3312055Partial agonist
5-HT1D*54370Antagonist
5-HT3*3.712Antagonist
5-HT7*19450Antagonist
β1-adrenoceptor46[6]

So SERT and 5HT3 would be the primary targets of vortioxetine?
And it's weakest effect would be on 5HT7?

Still knowing that though, I would like to be made aware of the book specifically, that covers Ki and IC 50 values - for completeness.
Because Stahls book does not seem to...
And that neuroscience book, also does not.
 
Yes, interpreted inversely. The lower the concentration of the drug needed to get to inhibition of 50% of the target, the more potent the drug is.

But as far as figuring out what effect will play what role with a drug, you might have to look beyond affinity and functional activation of a receptor by an agonist.

Just complete conjecture as an example, maybe its 5-HT1A agonism is playing a bigger role than 5-HT3 antagonism in some cases because there are many 5-HT1A in key places and activation of 5-HT1A has been heavily linked to antidepressant response, while (complete speculation) maybe there are not many 5-HT3 receptors or they are not placed in key locations. Though 5-HT3 antagonists have been investigated with some promise in regard to addiction, I don't know much else about them.

I think there could be cases where a small brain region (very small in the case of the claustrum) expresses a slightly esoteric receptor but even though a drug might have much higher affinity for other receptors that are widely expressed, it's possible that a lot of the effects could come from the low affinity for the receptor expressed in a key location. Just a concept to wrap your head around.
 
Yeah see - contrary to what the Ki values would have us believe, despite the tighter binding to say 5ht7,

5-HT1D*54370Antagonist
5-HT3*3.712Antagonist
5-HT7*19450Antagonist

It's functional activity is actually less than 5ht1d, which has a much weaker binding affinity.

There's nothing really to indicate why that's the case, as best I can tell, even put in perspective of the overall degree of binding.
I assume them ic50 values were determine as a result of assay tests (don't yet have a full understanding of what they are), and there is basically no ulterior means to predict them.
 
Affinity is determined by radioligand binding assays, essentially seeing how much the ligand in question is displacing the radioligand and determine affinity therein, but how exactly intrinsic activity or efficacy is determined I don't know, it could be using techniques to detect activation of G proteins or other signaling cascades, or you could detect a cells action potential response to a ligand with patch clamping techniques.

But how much a molecule causes a receptor to signal (and in what manner it signals) is determined by how the ligand binding changes the conformation of the receptor. You could look up G proteins for examples, I'm sure wiki is good.
 
sci-hub.cc (not a repository of information itself, but rather its a site that spoofs access tokens in order to make a non-paying customer, appear like a paying one, as if the request were coming from a uni with a journal subscription, just input the DOI of the article, sometimes the PMID also works, and occasionally although less reliably the journal reference name itself.)

Sod paying those greedy twats like elsevier too.

I
I tried to use this to access this,

http://www.micromedexsolutions.com/...oride&servicesTitle=Maprotiline+Hydrochloride

Just now.
Drugdex - to get the scoop on maprotaline.

No success.

Am I doing it right?
Can anyone else access that link using sci-hub?
 
I think sci hub was meant for studies like you would find on PubMed, to input the DOI of that study.
 
Correct?
/\

Its also made for people like me, to whom learning and possessing and never hoarding, but thence distributing knowledge is like crack and money for crack to a crackwhore.

Reading, listening and experimenting are this crackwhore's crack, and the money goes mostly on things for the experiments with a little kept back for food and drink sufficient to keep him alive and experimenting=D

Plus money for new reagents, new glassware, new equipment and new parts to build equipment. Else I'll happily live off rice pudding, a free multivitamin liquid on rx, (preferably white, because I'm a far-right-wing grapefruitist BNGP [british national grapefruit party fuck those Rub(b)er grapefruits, stab them with a knife, skin them and EAT THEM ALIVE, then kick their worthless skins out of the country back where they came from, fucking rubers) grapefruit juice, some cereal for fiber and lotsandlotsandlots of chilli con carne, plus of course, lots of wild mushrooms. I'm a convicted mycophile. Ordered to stay within easy traveling distance of at least 2-3 forests or woodlands, and to always, always carry a bag or three in order to pick said delectable comestibles. And a chilli con carne is a chili con carnAGE if its made without the seasoning and spicing granted by (in addition to some of my other custom admixtures) some dried, heatcured powdered fly agaric, added to some chunks of dried peppery boletus (Chalciporus piperatus, conveniently found with fly agaric, as it is a parasite upon this mushroom) then whizzed up in the spice grinder to dust, and added, a couple of tablespoons full to a cookpot of chili whilst it simmers on the low heat. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRVELY. Seriously, try that mixture with chili, it'll make you wish it didn't have searing fiery hot birds-eye peppers in it so you could stick your knob in it and turn beef to pork, like jesus did from water to weed (wine? you fucking serious, mr.bible.author(s)? If he can do water to wine, he can turn it into fucking weed, and turn some desert sand into a cunting well oasis to drink from. An oasis full of beer, with a smaller one that serves Manhattan Project cocktails on the side. With a neverending oasis of nonperoxidizing diethyl and diisopropyl ethers, served separately so that drinkers of said cocktail can make their own blends of the two as per personal taste. Its meant the be the son of god himself doing it, so wine? c'mon man, come the fuck on Whoever wrote that bible verse was on crack, or rather, had been and had run out, is more like it!
 
Last edited:
Are there any means to access

medicinescomplete.com

articles?

It requires an Athens password.
Sci-hub don't work.
 
Google rhodium drug synthesis and the first result is the best site I have found
 
I just finished "Stahls Essential Psychopharmacology".

It took me about 4 months - given my current level of cognitive function - about 1 hour of reading a day.


I've just started Nestlers "Molecular Neuropharmacology".

So far - it is worded at least - WAAAAAY more complex.
The terminology and general explanations seem far more intricate and in depth.

How long can I expect to work my way through Nestlers book??
 
I just finished "Stahls Essential Psychopharmacology".

It took me about 4 months - given my current level of cognitive function - about 1 hour of reading a day.


I've just started Nestlers "Molecular Neuropharmacology".

So far - it is worded at least - WAAAAAY more complex.
The terminology and general explanations seem far more intricate and in depth.

How long can I expect to work my way through Nestlers book??

Not sure, but a lot of things in that book don't really make sense, or are not that well explained (like GPCRs, for example), unless you have a good grounding in molecular biology.
 
Do you have any recommendations for books that would be a good follow on from Stahls book?

His book didn't really go into depth about binding profiles etc.
 
I think Stahls book gave a good fundamental understanding of neuropharmacology - but wow.
Molecular neuropharm by nestler - is fucking WAAAAY more interesting to read.
It's a lot slower to work through.
I could get 10 to 15 pages done at a time with Stahls book.

With the latter, I get maybe 3 or 4 done at a time.
But I don't know if it's the information, or the way it's written but - just more fun to read basically.

That being said, it references certain elements that I would probably have difficulty understanding, if Stahl hadn't outlined their fundamentals clearly first.

I never though I'd actually enjoy academics.
I studied engineering as an undergrad - and every time I sat down to it, I had to remind myself that "no one likes this shit - it's a means to an end".

But - neuropharm is some fun shit.
 
Just past the first section of Nestlers book - about 100 pages.

Onto the second section.

It's really a fucking great book.
Answering in such depth questions I've had.
Stahl didn't even touch on a lot of this, though his book was quite comprehensive on covering the various anti-psychotic drugs in terms of their binding.

But like I mentioned - Molecular Neuropharm, is 10x more fun to read.
And I never thought I'd include the word "fun", in the same sentence as the word "Molecular" - but there you have it.


Please - pretty please, with sugar on top - throw out some more suggested reading??
 
Top