Can you cycle finasteride to maintain effectiveness?

[Dave001]

Okay, simple challenge to you "dave." What is the actual significance of de/phosphorylation in this expermient.

None, per se.

 

[Weepy]

Unbelievably irrelvant to this discussion. We were talking about kinetics. This is an abstract on signal transduction.

Are you really that f*****g stupid? So what if it's on signal transduction? I don't care if it's about baking chocolate chip cookies, if it says something important. You probably didn't even read the paper. Further, we weren't talking about anything. You started to say something about reaction kinetics, but cowered in fear once you became aware of the transparency of your ignorance.

Phosphlrylation is not a big deal, cnsider RTKs. This is a common marker.

Learn how to complete a thought. Ever better: FOAD. But do it quietly and spare the world of your painfully mediocre intellect.

You really don't know what it means, do you. What is the actual signifigance of phosphrylcation here.

 

[Weepy]

Okay, simple challenge to you "dave." What is the actual significance of de/phosphorylation in this expermient.

None, per se.

res judicata

Edit,

Reminder, the article is:

"Phosphorylation/Dephosphorylation of Androgen Receptor as a Determinant of Androgen Agonistic or Antagonistic Activity."

Apparently, the experiment had no significance, per se.

 

[Dave001]

Okay, simple challenge to you "dave." What is the actual significance of de/phosphorylation in this expermient.

None, per se.

res judicata

Oh, how clever: a Latin legal term that has no applicability to anything in this thread.

Edit,

Reminder, the article is:

"Phosphorylation/Dephosphorylation of Androgen Receptor as a Determinant of Androgen Agonistic or Antagonistic Activity."

Apparently, the experiment had no significance, per se.

No, that's not what I said. The fact that phosphorylation is involved in modifying the androgen receptor response to ligands is not itself important; modification of the response is.

 

[Weepy]

Okay, simple challenge to you "dave." What is the actual significance of de/phosphorylation in this expermient.

None, per se.

res judicata

Oh, how clever: a Latin legal term that has no applicability to anything in this thread.

Edit,

Reminder, the article is:

"Phosphorylation/Dephosphorylation of Androgen Receptor as a Determinant of Androgen Agonistic or Antagonistic Activity."

Apparently, the experiment had no significance, per se.

No, that's not what I said. The fact that phosphorylation is involved in modifying the androgen receptor response to ligands is not itself important; modification of the response is.

No, this is not what this abstract says. Again, why is phosphorylation so important here? Hint: we are in the realm of signal transduction.

 

[Dave001]

Okay, simple challenge to you "dave." What is the actual significance of de/phosphorylation in this expermient.

None, per se.

res judicata

Oh, how clever: a Latin legal term that has no applicability to anything in this thread.

Edit,

Reminder, the article is:

"Phosphorylation/Dephosphorylation of Androgen Receptor as a Determinant of Androgen Agonistic or Antagonistic Activity."

Apparently, the experiment had no significance, per se.

No, that's not what I said. The fact that phosphorylation is involved in modifying the androgen receptor response to ligands is not itself important; modification of the response is.

No, this is not what this abstract says. Again, why is phosphorylation so important here? Hint: we are in the realm of signal transduction.

Gee, thanks for the hint. I have the whole paper. But what the authors are studying isn't directly of primary importance.

 

[Weepy]

The question I am asking you is very very simple, and is actually what they were looking at. In fact, what they were asking was well accepted before they even submitted in 1999. Do you understand this paper at all? Because I cal already explain to you (and I have already explain in lay terms to someone else in PM) what the significance of that abstract is.

 

[Dave001]

The question I am asking you is very very simple, and is actually what they were looking at. In fact, what they were asking was well accepted before they even submitted in 1999.

For the umpteenth time, the reason I cited the paper has nothing directly to do with what the authors were looking at.

Do you understand this paper at all? Because I cal already explain to you (and I have already explain in lay terms to someone else in PM) what the significance of that abstract is.

Can you locate your own a**h**? If you had difficulty following the eight pages (including references) of qualitative descriptions, quit school now while you're still behind.

 

[Weepy]

Admit you really don't know what you cited. As soon as you do, I will explain.

What were the authours looking at? What were they exploring? Surely, if you have the actual paper (and I do not, I only have the abstract) you understand the experiment and what the question they were asking.

 

[Dave001]

"Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever."

 

[Weepy]

"Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever."

Is that really the best you can do? Because what that abstract says is incredibly simple.

What does the paper actually mean, Dave?

 

[Dave001]

"Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever."

Is that really the best you can do? Because what that abstract says is incredibly simple.

What does the paper actually mean, Dave?

Indeed, it is very simple for any half-brained native speaker of English to comprehend, which begs the question: why can't you? The authors tell you what they are looking at in plain English. What you either cannot or refuse to grasp is that the central focus of the paper isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. The issue raised by this thread relates to the responsiveness of androgen sensitive tissue to stimuli.

 

[Weepy]

"Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever."

Is that really the best you can do? Because what that abstract says is incredibly simple.

What does the paper actually mean, Dave?

Indeed, it is very simple for any half-brained native speaker of English to comprehend, which begs the question: why can't you? The authors tell you what they are looking at in plain English. What you either cannot or refuse to grasp is that the central focus of the paper isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.

Wow. I said that as well, earlier.

Unbelievably irrelvant to this discussion. We were talking about kinetics. Phosphlrylation is not a big deal, cnsider RTKs. This is a common marker. I can't believe you actually posted this abstract as evidence of... what?

Wang, L. G., X. M. Liu, et al. (1999). "Phosphorylation/Dephosphorylation of Androgen Receptor as a Determinant of Androgen Agonistic or Antagonistic Activity." Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 259(1): 21.

So tell me, why did you post it?

Come clean, my friend. You don't know what this paper is about, do you.

 

[Weepy]

The issue raised by this thread relates to the responsiveness of androgen sensitive tissue to stimuli.

Good. Now, why would phosphorylation be important here, then?

 

[Dave001]

"Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever."

Is that really the best you can do? Because what that abstract says is incredibly simple.

What does the paper actually mean, Dave?

Indeed, it is very simple for any half-brained native speaker of English to comprehend, which begs the question: why can't you? The authors tell you what they are looking at in plain English. What you either cannot or refuse to grasp is that the central focus of the paper isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.

Wow. I said that as well, earlier.

Illiterate fool. The central focus isn't particularly relevant or important (which I've only repeated at least half a dozen times), which is entirely different from saying that the study is irrelevant.

 

[Weepy]

Is that really the best you can do? Because what that abstract says is incredibly simple.

What does the paper actually mean, Dave?

Indeed, it is very simple for any half-brained native speaker of English to comprehend, which begs the question: why can't you? The authors tell you what they are looking at in plain English.

Then why can't you tell me what it's about? I keep asking you -- and you've acknowledged it's straightforward -- but you never answer. Instead, you insult me, and make incredibly vague references. Why is that Dave? If it's so simple, why can't you tell me?

 

[Weepy]

Illiterate fool. The central focus isn't particularly relevant or important (which I've only repeated at least half a dozen times), which is entirely different from saying that the study is irrelevant.

LOL. Amazing.

Well, this has been amusing.

 

[Dave001]

The issue raised by this thread relates to the responsiveness of androgen sensitive tissue to stimuli.

Good. Now, why would phosphorylation be important here, then?

BECAUSE IT CAN ALTER THE SENSITIVITY OF THE RECEPTOR.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Troll.

 

[Weepy]

The issue raised by this thread relates to the responsiveness of androgen sensitive tissue to stimuli.

Good. Now, why would phosphorylation be important here, then?

BECAUSE IT CAN ALTER THE SENSITIVITY OF THE RECEPTOR.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Troll.

No. That is flat out wrong.

The actual significnance of the phosopohrylation in this experiment is as a switch. A phosphorylated receptor is on. A dephosphorylated receptor is off. That's all there is to it. And that is why they are looking at phosphrylation as a marker.

Our data indicate that the functional status of androgen receptors is strongly correlated with the phosphorylation status of the receptors, and that the phosphorylated androgen receptor is the form of the receptor transcriptionally active in regulation. Thus the androgen receptor phosphorylation/dephosphorylation may serve as a new molecular target for screening androgen antagonists for the treatment of prostate cancer.

 

[Dave001]

The issue raised by this thread relates to the responsiveness of androgen sensitive tissue to stimuli.

Good. Now, why would phosphorylation be important here, then?

BECAUSE IT CAN ALTER THE SENSITIVITY OF THE RECEPTOR.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Troll.

No. That is flat out wrong.

No, sorry. It is not wrong. Search for "phosphorylation" and "receptor sensitivity".

The actual significnance of the phosopohrylation in this experiment is as a switch. Phosphorlation/dephosphorylation = Agonism/Antagonism. A phosphorylated receptor is on. A dephosphorylated receptor is off. This is in accord with what is seen with RTKs. That's all there is to it. And that is why they are looking at phosphrylation as a marker.

What the f*** is your point? You simply refuse to acknowledge that what the authors were specifically looking at is not what is important.