225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10633174)
1. Human biological relevance and the use of threshold-arguments in regulatory genotoxicity assessment: experience with pharmaceuticals.
Müller L; Kasper P
Mutat Res; 2000 Jan; 464(1):19-34. PubMed ID: 10633174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
Kirkland D; Pfuhler S; Tweats D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Darroudi F; Elhajouji A; Glatt H; Hastwell P; Hayashi M; Kasper P; Kirchner S; Lynch A; Marzin D; Maurici D; Meunier JR; Müller L; Nohynek G; Parry J; Parry E; Thybaud V; Tice R; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; White P
Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interpretation of the biological relevance of genotoxicity test results: the importance of thresholds.
Kirkland DJ; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2000 Jan; 464(1):137-47. PubMed ID: 10633186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. ICH-harmonised guidances on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals: evolution, reasoning and impact.
Müller L; Kikuchi Y; Probst G; Schechtman L; Shimada H; Sofuni T; Tweats D
Mutat Res; 1999 May; 436(3):195-225. PubMed ID: 10354523
[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. 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]
9. Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: an appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes.
Kirkland DJ; Henderson L; Marzin D; Müller L; Parry JM; Speit G; Tweats DJ; Williams GM
Mutat Res; 2005 Dec; 588(2):88-105. PubMed ID: 16326131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Appropriate levels of cytotoxicity for genotoxicity tests using mammalian cells in vitro.
Müller L; Sofuni T
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2000; 35(3):202-5. PubMed ID: 10737955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. How to assess the mutagenic potential of cosmetic products without animal tests?
Speit G
Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 19379833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals.
Snyder RD; Green JW
Mutat Res; 2001 May; 488(2):151-69. PubMed ID: 11344042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Regulatory recognition of indirect genotoxicity mechanisms in the European Union.
Pratt IS; Barron T
Toxicol Lett; 2003 Apr; 140-141():53-62. PubMed ID: 12676451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results.
Kirkland DJ; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Carmichael P; Fautz R; Meunier JR; Pfuhler S
Mutagenesis; 2007 May; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Retrospective analysis of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity data of the cosmetic ingredients present on the Annexes of the Cosmetic EU legislation (2000-12).
Ates G; Doktorova TY; Pauwels M; Rogiers V
Mutagenesis; 2014 Mar; 29(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 24435663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The current limitations of in vitro genotoxicity testing and their relevance to the in vivo situation.
Nesslany F
Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 106(Pt B):609-615. PubMed ID: 27591928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing.
Parry JM; Parry E; Phrakonkham P; Corvi R
Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov; 25(6):531-8. PubMed ID: 20720196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of in vitro test systems using bacterial and mammalian cells for genotoxicity assessment within the "health-related indication value (HRIV) concept.
Prantl EM; Kramer M; Schmidt CK; Knauer M; Gartiser S; Shuliakevich A; Milas J; Glatt H; Meinl W; Hollert H
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2018 Feb; 25(5):3996-4010. PubMed ID: 27928753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Development of genotoxicity test procedures with Episkin, a reconstructed human skin model: towards new tools for in vitro risk assessment of dermally applied compounds?
Flamand N; Marrot L; Belaidi JP; Bourouf L; Dourille E; Feltes M; Meunier JR
Mutat Res; 2006 Jul; 606(1-2):39-51. PubMed ID: 16675293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. How will the genotoxicity guidelines for pharmaceuticals be changed by the ICH agreement.
Sofuni T
J Toxicol Sci; 1996 Dec; 21(5):461-4. PubMed ID: 9035054
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
