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 (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.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 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 (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)

The Social Security Payroll Tax Effect on Wage Growth.

Aggregate time-series and international cross-section empirical studies report a wide range of estimates of the effect of payroll taxes on wages. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics used in this study provides support for the hypothesis that payroll and personal income tax changes do not affect individuals' wage growth. A model of individual wage growth with possible tax effects was tested for simultaneity bias. Change in marginal tax rates were found to be simultaneously determined with change in hours worked and wage growth. A simultaneous equation system empirically estimated for white and black male heads found unexpected, but small and insignificant, signs for the effects of marginal tax rate changes on wage growth. The effects of marginal tax rate changes on wage growth were not significantly different from zero at the one percent confidence level. A simultaneous equation system was not empirically identifiable for married women, thus prohibiting the testing of the hypothesis that marginal workers with elastic labor supplies and low benefit/tax perceptions are less likely to have wages reduced as the result of payroll tax increases. Change in marginal payroll tax rates were not found to have significantly different effects on the wage growth of black and white males or non-union and union members. Estimates of separate effects for changes in the statutory payroll tax rate and the taxable maximum level of earnings were possible with individual panel data. The hypothesis of backward shifting of the payroll tax in the form of reduced nominal wages was rejected for both changes in the payroll tax structure. Some backward shifting, however, may occur in the form of reduced deferred or non-pecuniary compensation or in later periods.Ph.D.FinanceUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/158150/1/8106197.pd

Tax distortions in cross-border flows of intangible assets

The phenomenon of global fragmented production and associated trade in intermediate products, including intangible assets, has changed how economists study globalization and how new public policies are shaped. Understanding cross-border flows of disembodied knowledge, often associated with intellectual property (IP), is essential for analyzing how modern economies operate. Available data to document these international IP-related knowledge flows—namely cross-border payments for IP—are distorted by various factors. Tax planning by multinational enterprises has seriously distorted the measurement of cross-border IP flows, affecting national measurements of imports, exports, GDP, and productivity. The tax-induced mismeasurement could be more than 35% of global charges for use of intellectual property, and greater for individual countries, particularly high-tax-rate countries. International initiatives to address the effects of tax base erosion, profit shifting, and other statistical initiatives on global value chains will improve future measurements of cross-border IP flows, improving the understanding of both the creation and uses of IP. Keywords: Global value chain, Intellectual property, Intangible assets, Tax, Base erosion, Profit shifting, Cross-border flows, Charges for the use of intellectual propert