BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19695316)

  • 1. Modelling of patient EMS exposure: translating pharmacokinetics of EMS in vitro and in animals into patients.
    Lavé T; Paehler A; Grimm HP; Gocke E; Müller L
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):310-6. PubMed ID: 19695316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In vivo and in vitro characterization of ethyl methanesulfonate pharmacokinetics in animals and in human.
    Lavé T; Birnböck H; Götschi A; Ramp T; Pähler A
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):303-9. PubMed ID: 19695315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Viracept (nelfinavir)--ethyl methanesulfonate case: a threshold risk assessment for human exposure to a genotoxic drug contamination?
    Lutz WK
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 19695319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. EMS in Viracept--initial ('traditional') assessment of risk to patients based on linear dose response relations.
    Gocke E; Müller L; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):266-70. PubMed ID: 19439165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Literature review on the genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity of ethyl methanesulfonate.
    Gocke E; Bürgin H; Müller L; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):254-65. PubMed ID: 19857796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. EMS in Viracept--the course of events in 2007 and 2008 from the non-clinical safety point of view.
    Müller L; Singer T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 19857794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In vivo genotoxicity of EMS: statistical assessment of the dose response curves.
    Gocke E; Wall M
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):298-302. PubMed ID: 19857797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. General 4-week toxicity study with EMS in the rat.
    Pfister T; Eichinger-Chapelon A
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):271-85. PubMed ID: 19442710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. What happened: the chemistry side of the incident with EMS contamination in Viracept tablets.
    Gerber C; Toelle HG
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):248-53. PubMed ID: 19857795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. MNT and MutaMouse studies to define the in vivo dose response relations of the genotoxicity of EMS and ENU.
    Gocke E; Ballantyne M; Whitwell J; Müller L
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):286-97. PubMed ID: 19446969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Considerations regarding a permitted daily exposure calculation for ethyl methanesulfonate.
    Müller L; Gocke E
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):330-2. PubMed ID: 19857798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In vivo studies in the mouse to define a threshold for the genotoxicity of EMS and ENU.
    Gocke E; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):101-7. PubMed ID: 19376265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Viracept-EMS case: impact and outlook.
    Walker VE; Casciano DA; Tweats DJ
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):333-9. PubMed ID: 19866516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: recommendations for data analysis.
    Johnson GE; Doak SH; Griffiths SM; Quick EL; Skibinski DO; Zaïr ZM; Jenkins GJ
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):95-100. PubMed ID: 19467345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. PBPK models in risk assessment--A focus on chloroprene.
    DeWoskin RS
    Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):352-9. PubMed ID: 17324392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Prediction of human pharmacokinetics from preclinical information: comparative accuracy of quantitative prediction approaches.
    Hosea NA; Collard WT; Cole S; Maurer TS; Fang RX; Jones H; Kakar SM; Nakai Y; Smith BJ; Webster R; Beaumont K
    J Clin Pharmacol; 2009 May; 49(5):513-33. PubMed ID: 19299532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of pharmacokinetic and metabolic profiling among gossypol, apogossypol and apogossypol hexaacetate.
    Jia L; Coward LC; Kerstner-Wood CD; Cork RL; Gorman GS; Noker PE; Kitada S; Pellecchia M; Reed JC
    Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 2008 Jan; 61(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 17356822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Prediction of human oral pharmacokinetics using nonclinical data: examples involving four proprietary compounds.
    Fura A; Vyas V; Humphreys W; Chimalokonda A; Rodrigues D
    Biopharm Drug Dispos; 2008 Nov; 29(8):455-68. PubMed ID: 18989850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach.
    Bokkers BG; Slob W
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007 Jun; 37(5):355-73. PubMed ID: 17612951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.