Free fatty acid receptors in GtoPdb v.2023.1

Free fatty acid receptors (FFA, nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on free fatty acid receptors [116, 27]) are activated by free fatty acids. Long-chain saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (including C14.0 (myristic acid), C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:1 (oleic acid), C18:2 (linoleic acid), C18:3, (α-linolenic acid), C20:4 (arachidonic acid), C20:5,n-3 (EPA) and C22:6,n-3 (docosahexaenoic acid)) activate FFA1 [9, 54, 64] and FFA4 receptors [45, 52, 94], while short chain fatty acids (C2 (acetic acid), C3 (propanoic acid), C4 (butyric acid) and C5 (pentanoic acid)) activate FFA2 [10, 66, 90] and FFA3 [10, 66] receptors. The crystal structure for agonist bound FFA1 has been described [113]

Free fatty acid receptors (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

Free fatty acid receptors (FFA, nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on free fatty acid receptors [111, 24]) are activated by free fatty acids. Long-chain saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (including C14.0 (myristic acid), C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:1 (oleic acid), C18:2 (linoleic acid), C18:3, (α-linolenic acid), C20:4 (arachidonic acid), C20:5,n-3 (EPA) and C22:6,n-3 (docosahexaenoic acid)) activate FFA1 [8, 50, 60] and FFA4 receptors [41, 48, 90], while short chain fatty acids (C2 (acetic acid), C3 (propanoic acid), C4 (butyric acid) and C5 (pentanoic acid)) activate FFA2 [9, 62, 86] and FFA3 [9, 62] receptors. The crystal structure for agonist bound FFA1 has been described [108]

Mental health in UK Biobank: development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants

Background UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500 000 participants that offers unique opportunities to investigate multiple diseases and risk factors. Aims An online mental health questionnaire completed by UK Biobank participants was expected to expand the potential for research into mental disorders. Method An expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting with a patient group regarding acceptability. Case definitions were defined using operational criteria for lifetime depression, mania, anxiety disorder, psychotic-like experiences and self-harm, as well as current post-traumatic stress and alcohol use disorders. Results 157 366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status than the general population across a range of indicators. Thirty-five per cent (55 750) of participants had at least one defined syndrome, of which lifetime depression was the most common at 24% (37 434). There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation. Conclusions The questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed owing to selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health

Class A Orphans (version 2020.5) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [194], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [150]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.Table 1: Class A orphan GPCRs with putative endogenous ligands GPR3 GPR4 GPR6 GPR12 GPR15 GPR17 GPR20 GPR22 GPR26 GPR31 GPR34 GPR35 GPR37 GPR39 GPR50 GPR63 GRP65 GPR68 GPR75 GPR84 GPR87 GPR88 GPR132 GPR149 GPR161 GPR183 LGR4 LGR5 LGR6 MAS1 MRGPRD MRGPRX1 MRGPRX2 P2RY10 TAAR2 In addition the orphan receptors GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119 which are reported to respond to endogenous agents analogous to the endogenous cannabinoid ligands have been grouped together (GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119)

Class A Orphans in GtoPdb v.2023.1

Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [161], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [121]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.Table 1: Class A orphan GPCRs with putative endogenous ligands GPR3GPR4GPR6GPR12GPR15GPR17GPR20 GPR22GPR26GPR31GPR34GPR35GPR37GPR39 GPR50GPR63GPR65GPR68GPR75GPR84GPR87 GPR88GPR132GPR149GPR161GPR183LGR4LGR5 LGR6MAS1MRGPRDMRGPRX1MRGPRX2P2RY10TAAR2 In addition the orphan receptors GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119 which are reported to respond to endogenous agents analogous to the endogenous cannabinoid ligands have been grouped together (GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119)

Class A Orphans in GtoPdb v.2022.3

Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [161], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [121]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.Table 1: Class A orphan GPCRs with putative endogenous ligands GPR3GPR4GPR6GPR12GPR15GPR17GPR20 GPR22GPR26GPR31GPR34GPR35GPR37GPR39 GPR50GPR63GPR65GPR68GPR75GPR84GPR87 GPR88GPR132GPR149GPR161GPR183LGR4LGR5 LGR6MAS1MRGPRDMRGPRX1MRGPRX2P2RY10TAAR2 In addition the orphan receptors GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119 which are reported to respond to endogenous agents analogous to the endogenous cannabinoid ligands have been grouped together (GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119)

Class A Orphans in GtoPdb v.2021.3

Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [161], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [121]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.Table 1: Class A orphan GPCRs with putative endogenous ligands GPR3GPR4GPR6GPR12GPR15GPR17GPR20 GPR22GPR26GPR31GPR34GPR35GPR37GPR39 GPR50GPR63GRP65GPR68GPR75GPR84GPR87 GPR88GPR132GPR149GPR161GPR183LGR4LGR5 LGR6MAS1MRGPRDMRGPRX1MRGPRX2P2RY10TAAR2 In addition the orphan receptors GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119 which are reported to respond to endogenous agents analogous to the endogenous cannabinoid ligands have been grouped together (GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119)

Class A Orphans (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

Table 1 lists a number of putative GPCRs identified by NC-IUPHAR [191], for which preliminary evidence for an endogenous ligand has been published, or for which there exists a potential link to a disease, or disorder. These GPCRs have recently been reviewed in detail [148]. The GPCRs in Table 1 are all Class A, rhodopsin-like GPCRs. Class A orphan GPCRs not listed in Table 1 are putative GPCRs with as-yet unidentified endogenous ligands.Table 1: Class A orphan GPCRs with putative endogenous ligands GPR3GPR4GPR6GPR12GPR15GPR17GPR20 GPR22GPR26GPR31GPR34GPR35GPR37GPR39 GPR50GPR63GRP65GPR68GPR75GPR84GPR87 GPR88GPR132GPR149GPR161GPR183LGR4LGR5 LGR6MAS1MRGPRDMRGPRX1MRGPRX2P2RY10TAAR2 In addition the orphan receptors GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119 which are reported to respond to endogenous agents analogous to the endogenous cannabinoid ligands have been grouped together (GPR18, GPR55 and GPR119)

Aberrant Function of Learning and Cognitive Control Networks Underlie Inefficient Cognitive Flexibility in Anorexia Nervosa: A Cross-Sectional fMRI Study

Objectives People with Anorexia Nervosa exhibit difficulties flexibly adjusting behaviour in response to environmental changes. This has previously been attributed to problematic behavioural shifting, characterised by a decrease in fronto-striatal activity. Additionally, alterations of instrumental learning, which relies on fronto-striatal networks, may contribute to the observation of inflexible behaviour. The authors sought to investigate the neural correlates of cognitive flexibility and learning in Anorexia Nervosa. Method Thirty-two adult females with Anorexia Nervosa and thirty-two age-matched female control participants completed the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task whilst undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Event-related analysis permitted the comparison of cognitive shift trials against those requiring maintenance of rule-sets and allowed assessment of trials representing learning. Results Although both groups performed similarly, we found significant interactions in the left middle frontal gyrus, precuneus and superior parietal lobule whereby blood-oxygenated-level dependent response was higher in Anorexia Nervosa patients during shifting but lower when maintaining rule-sets, as compared to healthy controls. During learning, posterior cingulate cortex activity in healthy controls decreased whilst increasing in the Anorexia Nervosa group, whereas the right precuneus exhibited the opposite pattern. Furthermore, learning was associated with lower blood-oxygenated-level dependent response in the caudate body, as compared to healthy controls. Conclusions People with Anorexia Nervosa display widespread changes in executive function. Whilst cognitive flexibility appears to be associated with aberrant functioning of the fronto-parietal control network that mediates between internally and externally directed cognition, fronto-striatal alterations, particularly within the caudate body, were associated with instrumental learning. Together, this shows how perseverative tendencies could be a substrate of multiple high-order processes that may contribute to the maintenance of Anorexia Nervosa

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research