This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
home:publications:marshall_theoretical_2006 [03.07.2014] – [Results] sallieq | home:publications:marshall_theoretical_2006 [03.08.2019] – [Conclusion] sallieq | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Molecular modeling has proven valuable to generate testable hypotheses concerning receptor/ | Molecular modeling has proven valuable to generate testable hypotheses concerning receptor/ | ||
{{tag> | {{tag> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Editor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Professor Marshall now says | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | I was conservative in that paper, and didn't claim Benicar as an agonist, but that had changed by Karolinska (as I collected more data) and now the molecular dynamics has firmly confirmed its remarkable similarity to 1,25-D in the VDR binding pocket (same residues, same hydrogen bonding, etc). Out of the pocket it is different in conformation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | I am sure that olmesartan is active in some of the microbes. The early 1990's research on ARBs identified that fact. I am not sure what exactly the effect on the microbes is, if any. I don't think it is direct killing, as the difference we see between folks' reaction to Benicar are now being readily quantified in terms of their D metabolism (by both myself and Dr Greg Blaney). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Our early papers say Benicar is an antagonist because 99% of molecules antagonize, and less than 1% activate receptors. So you always start from that perspective (an antagonist unless proven otherwise). After about 6 months of exploring all the possibilities, | ||