Advertisement

Drug Action: Target Tissue, Dose-Response Relationships, and Receptors

  • E. J. Ariëns
  • A. M. Simonis

Abstract

In the complex processes of drug action three main phases can be distinguished (Fig. 1): the pharmaceutical phase, the pharmacokinetic phase and the pharmacodynamic phase. They form a suitable frame for the discussion of the chemical basis of drug action.

Keywords

Receptor Site Competitive Antagonist Cholinergic Agent Reactive Intermediate Product Receptor Reserve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ariëns, E. J., 1964, Molecular Pharmacology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ariëns, E. J., 1971a, Drug Design, Vol. I., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Ariëns, E. J., 1971b Drug Design, Vol. II, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Ariëns, E. J., and Simonis, A. M., 1964, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 16: 137, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariëns, E. J., and Simonis, A. M., 1967, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 144: 842.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van den Brink, F. G., 1973, Part I and II. European J. Pharmacol., 22: 270 and 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodie, B. B., 1972, Abstracts of Invited Presentations, p.5. 5th International Congress on Pharmacology, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  8. Ellenbroek, B. W. J., Nivard, R. J. F., van Rossum, J. M., and Ariëns, E. J., 1965, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 17: 393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Funcke, A. B. H., Rekker, R. F., Ernsting, M. J. E., Tersteege, H. M., and Nauta, W. Th., 1959, Arzneim. Forsch. 9: 573.Google Scholar
  10. Hansson, E., and Schmiterlöw, C. G., 1961, Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. 131: 309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harms, A. F., and Nauta, W. Th., 1960, J. Med. Pharm. Chem. 2: 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Paton, W. D. M., 1961, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Biol.) 154: 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ritschel, W. A., 1972, Drug Intell Clin. Pharm. 6: 246.Google Scholar
  14. Seelig, S., Sayers, G., Beali, R., and Schwyzer, R., 1972a, Abstracts of Volunteer Papers, p. 207, 5th International Congress on Pharmacology, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  15. Seelig, S, and Sayers, G., 1972b, personal communications.Google Scholar
  16. Sellers, E. M., Lang, M., Koch-Weser, J., and Colman, R. W., 1972, Clin. Pharmacol. Therap. 13: 911.Google Scholar
  17. Smolen, V. F., Turrie, B. D., and Weigand, W. A., 1972, J. Pharm. Sci. 61: 1941.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Symposium on Mechanisms of Toxicity by Therapeutic and Environmental Agents, 1973, Vol. 2, Proceedings, 5th International Congress on Pharmacology, San Francisco, California, Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  19. Wick, H., 1972, unpublished data. Research Institute, C.H. Boehringer Sohn, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. Wieriks, J., 1972, Thesis, Medical School of Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. J. Ariëns
    • 1
  • A. M. Simonis
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacological InstituteUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations