1201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10353401)
1. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genetic toxicology data in the evaluation of potential human environmental carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
Mutat Res; 1999 Jul; 437(1):21-49. PubMed ID: 10425388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity utilizing a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests.
Kim BS; Margolin BH
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):297-304. PubMed ID: 10618179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.
Kirkland D; Reeve L; Gatehouse D; Vanparys P
Mutat Res; 2011 Mar; 721(1):27-73. PubMed ID: 21238603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):83-96. PubMed ID: 16386343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Efficiency of the prediction of carcinogenic activities of chemical substances based on scoring somatic mutations in the soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill].
Bittueva MM; Abilev SK; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 2007 Jan; 43(1):78-87. PubMed ID: 17333942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hazard identification: efficiency of short-term tests in identifying germ cell mutagens and putative nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA; Bridges BA
Environ Health Perspect; 1993 Oct; 101 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):61-72. PubMed ID: 8143649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: premises, promises, and performance.
Zeiger E
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Oct; 28(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 9927558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The genetic toxicology of putative nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Jackson MA; Stack HF; Waters MD
Mutat Res; 1993 Mar; 296(3):241-77. PubMed ID: 7680106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of the bioluminescence assays as screens for genotoxic chemicals.
Elmore E; Fitzgerald MP
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():379-87. PubMed ID: 2371306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Short-term tests, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity in light of a multivariate statistical exploration.
Benigni R
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 1989; 25(4):573-5. PubMed ID: 2631623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mutagens that are not carcinogens: faulty theory or faulty tests?
Zeiger E
Mutat Res; 2001 May; 492(1-2):29-38. PubMed ID: 11377241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prediction of a carcinogenic potential of rat hepatocarcinogens using toxicogenomics analysis of short-term in vivo studies.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Gmuender H; Bandenburg A; Ahr HJ
Mutat Res; 2008 Jan; 637(1-2):23-39. PubMed ID: 17689568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Which rules for assembling short-term test batteries to predict carcinogenicity?
Benigni R; Giuliani A
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(2-3):143-66. PubMed ID: 3449755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
