1 ar for cisatracurium and (+)-tubocurarine or metocurine.

2 n experiments with the curariform antagonist metocurine.

3                                     However, metocurine and atracurium could potentiate the responses

4                           The interaction of metocurine and atracurium with acetylcholine at fetal-ty

5 hypothesis was tested for the pair of agents metocurine and gallamine by determining the ability of a

6 sults are consistent with the idea that both metocurine and gallamine have a high affinity for the sa

7 ular blocking agents (atracurium, gallamine, metocurine, and pancuronium) to act as competitive antag

8 amine to block the partial agonist action of metocurine at fetal-type receptors was tested as well an

9 t despite their similar structures, d-TC and metocurine bind in distinctly different orientations to

10 juxtapose one of two quaternary nitrogens in metocurine but are remote from the equivalent quaternary

11 minant docking orientation for both d-TC and metocurine, but unexpectedly, the bound orientations dif

12 111K, and epsilon L109K decrease affinity of metocurine by up to 3 orders of magnitude but only sligh

13 orientations of each antagonist; the flatter metocurine fits into a pocket formed principally by the

14 competitive antagonists (+)-tubocurarine and metocurine for adult mouse receptors is known.

15 ns of Trp-53 and Gln-55 closely approach the metocurine scaffold but not that of d-TC.

16                                              Metocurine shifted the apparent IC(50) of (+)-tubocurari

17 curare derivatives d-tubocurarine (d-TC) and metocurine to AChBP using computational methods, mutagen

18 urarine (d-TC) and its methylated derivative metocurine using mutagenesis, ligand binding measurement

19 farther away from the equivalent nitrogen in metocurine, whereas, at the opposing interface, side cha