/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8856501
> if another compound than testosterone, like some artificial pollutant or something, binds to the testosterone receptor instead, is the effect the same?
Pretty much yeah. When a hormone or something similar binds to a surface protein on a cell it causes a conformational change in the protein. This causes it to react with other proteins that then react with other proteins in a large signal cascade. This signal cascade then causes whatever effect that hormone causes. The only problem with some random pollutant is that it's hard to know what it will react with, possibly more proteins than you might think

>>8856515
So for the record, hormones *only* work as messages and do not do anything by themselves other than activate the receptors they were made for - and any other compound that happens to fit the receptor works just the same, so essentially only the receptor does the "hard work"? I want to get this straight.

>>8856524
Not the guy you're replying to but the answer to that question is yes. However be careful with what you're implying. A hormone usually has more than one targeted receptor, for instance epinephrine has different effects depending on what cells in the body it interacts with. At the end of the day though, it's still the mechanical machinery that does the work. There's a difference in HOW the work is done and WHERE it's done depending on the hormone (lipid/water solubility, tropic/nontropic) but the hormone SIGNALS a response, it does not EXECUTE a response.

>>8856562
By mechanical machinery I meant molecular machinery obviously. And to be a little more specific I mean a change in either existing protein function or a change in transcription/translation rates

>>8856501
dumb frogposter