1201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10353401)
21. Contemporary trends in in vivo and in vitro testing of chemical carcinogens.
Slamenová D
Neoplasma; 2001; 48(6):425-34. PubMed ID: 11949832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Study of the possibilities of using a short-term test system in vitro for detection of potential mutagens (carcinogens)].
Domshlak MG; Sanotskiĭ IV; Serebrianyĭ AM
Gig Tr Prof Zabol; 1989; (11):47-9. PubMed ID: 2515120
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Computer-aided analysis of mutagenicity and cell transformation data for assessing their relationship with carcinogenicity.
Taningher M; Malacarne D; Perrotta A; Parodi S
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 33(3):226-39. PubMed ID: 10334625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The new ISSMIC database on in vivo micronucleus and its role in assessing genotoxicity testing strategies.
Benigni R; Bossa C; Tcheremenskaia O; Battistelli CL; Crettaz P
Mutagenesis; 2012 Jan; 27(1):87-92. PubMed ID: 21965461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity.
Petkov PI; Schultz TW; Donner EM; Honma M; Morita T; Hamada S; Wakata A; Mishima M; Maniwa J; Todorov M; Kaloyanova E; Kotov S; Mekenyan OG
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 36(12):1536-1550. PubMed ID: 27225589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A feasibility study: Can information collected to classify for mutagenicity be informative in predicting carcinogenicity?
Petkov PI; Patlewicz G; Schultz TW; Honma M; Todorov M; Kotov S; Dimitrov SD; Donner EM; Mekenyan OG
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Jun; 72(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 25792138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Mutagenicity assessment of acrylate and methacrylate compounds and implications for regulatory toxicology requirements.
Johannsen FR; Vogt B; Waite M; Deskin R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Apr; 50(3):322-35. PubMed ID: 18346829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Characterizing and predicting carcinogenicity and mode of action using conventional and toxicogenomics methods.
Waters MD; Jackson M; Lea I
Mutat Res; 2010 Dec; 705(3):184-200. PubMed ID: 20399889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Epidemiology of occupational carcinogens and mutagens.
Ruder AM
Occup Med; 1996; 11(3):487-512. PubMed ID: 8887381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A novel approach: chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity.
Benigni R; Bossa C; Richard AM; Yang C
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2008; 44(1):48-56. PubMed ID: 18469376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of nitroarenes and their sources in the environment.
Tokiwa H; Ohnishi Y
Crit Rev Toxicol; 1986; 17(1):23-60. PubMed ID: 2427276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 16352383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo.
Kirkland D; Speit G
Mutat Res; 2008 Jul; 654(2):114-32. PubMed ID: 18585956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Genotoxic and clastogenic effects of doxorubicin].
Villani P; Orsière T; Duffaud F; Digue L; Bouvenot G; Botta A
Therapie; 1998; 53(4):391-5. PubMed ID: 9806010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines.
Sistare FD; Morton D; Alden C; Christensen J; Keller D; Jonghe SD; Storer RD; Reddy MV; Kraynak A; Trela B; Bienvenu JG; Bjurström S; Bosmans V; Brewster D; Colman K; Dominick M; Evans J; Hailey JR; Kinter L; Liu M; Mahrt C; Marien D; Myer J; Perry R; Potenta D; Roth A; Sherratt P; Singer T; Slim R; Soper K; Fransson-Steen R; Stoltz J; Turner O; Turnquist S; van Heerden M; Woicke J; DeGeorge JJ
Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):716-44. PubMed ID: 21666103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Genotoxicty and mutagenicity.
Maurici D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Kleber M; Krul C; Laurent C; Loprieno N; Pasanen M; Pfuhler S; Phillips B; Sabbioni E; Sanner T; Vanparys P
Altern Lab Anim; 2005 Jul; 33 Suppl 1():117-30. PubMed ID: 16194145
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Strategies for the identification of rodent carcinogens by in vitro short-term tests.
Zeiger E
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():261-71. PubMed ID: 2371299
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The use of short-and medium-term tests for carcinogens and data on genetic effects in carcinogenic hazard evaluation. Consensus report.
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):1-18. PubMed ID: 10353381
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
