NURS 6630 Week 2 Neurotransmitters and Receptor Theory
NURS 6630 Week 2 Neurotransmitters and Receptor Theory
NURS 6630 Week 2 Neurotransmitters and Receptor Theory
Receptors and neurotransmitters are like a lock-and-key system. Just as it takes the right key to open a specific lock, it takes the right neurotransmitter to bind to a specific receptor. Not surprisingly, as it concerns psychopharmacology, the pharmacotherapeutics that are prescribed must trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters that bind to the correct receptors in order to elicit a favorable response for the patient. The mechanism of this binding and the response that follows reflects receptor theory and lies at the foundation of pharmacology.
I really enjoyed reading your article, it was very informative. However, in addition to your points about the agonist-antagonist spectrum, I will like to share additional insight I found interesting too.
According to Berg and Clarke (2018), Agonists have intrinsic efficacy (the ability to increase the activity of a receptor), and inverse agonists are said to have negative intrinsic efficacy (the ability to decrease the activity of a receptor). Just as agonist intrinsic efficacy for a receptor varies with the structure of the agonist (resulting in strong agonists and weaker [partial] agonists), inverse agonists also have different degrees of negative intrinsic efficacy, resulting in strong and weak (partial) inverse agonists.
Inverse agonists are ligands that selectively bind to the inactive state of the receptor (Kenakin, 2017). If any receptor happens to be in an active state spontaneously, then an inverse agonist will reverse the resultant constitutive activity. However, the main pharmacological effect of inverse agonists is receptor antagonism, that is, inverse agonists will block the effect of agonists and the effect on constitutive activity is only relevant if the system is spontaneously active (Kenakin, 2017). There is a property of inverse agonists that may be therapeutically relevant in nonconstitutively active systems (Kenakin, 2017).
References
Berg, K. A., & Clarke, W. P. (2018). Making sense of pharmacology: Inverse agonism and functional selectivity. The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 21(10), 962–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyy071
Kenakin, T. P. (2017). Pharmacology in Drug Discovery and Development (Second Edition). ScienceDirect. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803752-2.00004-1
This week, you will continue your examination of neuroanatomy and neuroscience as you engage with you colleagues in a Discussion. You will also explore the potential impacts of foundational neuroscience on the prescription of pharmacotherapeutics.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
• Analyze the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents
• Compare the actions of g couple proteins to ion gated channels
• Analyze the role of epigenetics in pharmacologic action
• Analyze the impact of foundational neuroscience on the prescription of medications
________________________________________
Learning Resources
Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)
Camprodon, J. A., & Roffman, J. L. (2016). Psychiatric neuroscience: Incorporating pathophysiology into clinical case formulation. In T. A. Stern, M. Favo, T. E. Wilens, & J. F. Rosenbaum. (Eds.), Massachusetts General Hospital psychopharmacology and neurotherapeutics (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Required Media (click to expand/reduce)
The University of British Columbia. (n. d.). Neuroanatomy videos. http://neuroanatomy.ca/videos.html
Note: Please review all of the media under the neuroanatomy series.
Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)
Pathopharmacology: Disorders of the Nervous System: Exploring the Human Brain
Dr. Norbert Myslinski reviews the structure and function of the human brain. Using human brains, he examines and illustrates the development of the brain and areas impacted by disorders associated with the brain. (15m)
Introduction to Advanced Pharmacology
In this media presentation, Dr. Terry Buttaro, associate professor of practice at Simmons School of Nursing and Health Sciences, discusses the importance of pharmacology for the advanced practice nurse. (6m)
________________________________________
Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience
As a psychiatric nurse practitioner, it is essential for you to have a strong background in foundational neuroscience. In order to diagnose and treat patients, you must not only understand the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders but also how medications for these disorders impact the central nervous system. These concepts of foundational neuroscience can be challenging to understand. Therefore, this Discussion is designed to encourage you to think through these concepts, develop a rationale for your thinking, and deepen your understanding by interacting with your colleagues.
Photo Credit: Getty Images/Cultura RF
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on the concepts of foundational neuroscience as they might apply to your role as the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner in prescribing medications for patients.
By Day 3 of Week 2
Post a response to each of the following:
1. Explain the agonist-to-antagonist spectrum of action of psychopharmacologic agents, including how partial and inverse agonist functionality may impact the efficacy of psychopharmacologic treatments.
2. Compare and contrast the actions of g couple proteins and ion gated channels.
3. Explain how the role of epigenetics may contribute to pharmacologic action.
4. Explain how this information may impact the way you prescribe medications to patients. Include a specific example of a situation or case with a patient in which the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner must be aware of the medication’s action.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 2
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one of the following ways:
• If your colleagues’ posts influenced your understanding of these concepts, be sure to share how and why. Include additional insights you gained.
• If you think your colleagues might have misunderstood these concepts, offer your alternative perspective and be sure to provide an explanation for them. Include resources to support your perspective.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 2 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 2
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 2 Discussion
________________________________________
What’s Coming Up in Week 3?
Photo Credit: [BrianAJackson]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images
Next week, you will explore medication adherence and strategies to help overcome non-adherence to pharmacotherapeutics. You will also complete a Quiz that addresses the content covered throughout this module.
Next Week
To go to the next week:
Week 3
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
Excellent
Point range: 90–100 Good
Point range: 80–89 Fair
Point range: 70–79 Poor
Point range: 0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources. Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references. Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with fewer than two credible references. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6630 Week 2 Neurotransmitters and Receptor Theory
Meets requirements for full participation. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in Standard, Edited English. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in Standard, Edited English. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date. Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date. Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric