230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14657512)
1. The utility of genetically modified mouse assays for identifying human carcinogens: a basic understanding and path forward. The Alternatives to Carcinogenicity Testing Committee ILSI HESI.
MacDonald J; French JE; Gerson RJ; Goodman J; Inoue T; Jacobs A; Kasper P; Keller D; Lavin A; Long G; McCullough B; Sistare FD; Storer R; van der Laan JW
Toxicol Sci; 2004 Feb; 77(2):188-94. PubMed ID: 14657512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The in vivo rodent test systems for assessment of carcinogenic potential.
van der Laan JW; Spindler P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):122-5. PubMed ID: 11846641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Background and framework for ILSI's collaborative evaluation program on alternative models for carcinogenicity assessment. International Life Sciences Institute.
Robinson DE; MacDonald JS
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():13-9. PubMed ID: 11695549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The transgenic mouse assay as an alternative test method for regulatory carcinogenicity studies--implications for REACH.
Wells MY; Williams ES
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Mar; 53(2):150-5. PubMed ID: 19126422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of genetically modified mouse models for evaluation of carcinogenic risk: considerations for the laboratory animal scientist.
Recio L; Everitt J
Comp Med; 2001 Oct; 51(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 11924798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
Rhomberg LR; Baetcke K; Blancato J; Bus J; Cohen S; Conolly R; Dixit R; Doe J; Ekelman K; Fenner-Crisp P; Harvey P; Hattis D; Jacobs A; Jacobson-Kram D; Lewandowski T; Liteplo R; Pelkonen O; Rice J; Somers D; Turturro A; West W; Olin S
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(9):729-837. PubMed ID: 17957539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of the Xpa-deficient transgenic mouse model for short-term carcinogenicity testing: 9-month studies with haloperidol, reserpine, phenacetin, and D-mannitol.
Lina BA; Woutersen RA; Bruijntjes JP; van Benthem J; van den Berg JA; Monbaliu J; Thoolen BJ; Beems RB; van Kreijl CF
Toxicol Pathol; 2004; 32(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 15200157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Cohen SM; Robinson D; MacDonald J
Toxicol Sci; 2001 Nov; 64(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 11606797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Goodman JI
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop.
Lai DY; Baetcke KP; Vu VT; Cotruvo JA; Eustis SL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):183-201. PubMed ID: 8041916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Genetically altered mouse models for identifying carcinogens.
Tennant RW; Stasiewicz S; Mennear J; French JE; Spalding JW
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):123-50. PubMed ID: 10353386
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Transgenic animal models that might be useful in identifying unsuspected oncogenic factors in tumour cell substrates.
Sistare FD
Dev Biol (Basel); 2001; 106():123-31; discussion 131-2, 143-60. PubMed ID: 11761226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The mouse carcinogenicity study is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides.
Billington R; Lewis RW; Mehta JM; Dewhurst I
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2010 Jan; 40(1):35-49. PubMed ID: 20144135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Panel discussion on the application of alternative models to cancer risk assessment.
Pettit SD
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():191-5. PubMed ID: 11695557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and theEnvironment. Statement on ILSI/HESI research programme on alternative cancer models.
Blain PG
Toxicol Pathol; 2003; 31(2):254-7. PubMed ID: 12696588
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Carcinogenic chemical-response "fingerprint" for male F344 rats exposed to a series of 195 chemicals: implications for predicting carcinogens with transgenic models.
Johnson FM
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):234-45. PubMed ID: 10618171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of clofibrate in the rasH2 mouse.
Nesfield SR; Clarke CJ; Hoivik DJ; Miller RT; Allen JS; Selinger K; Santostefano MJ
Int J Toxicol; 2005; 24(5):301-11. PubMed ID: 16257850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Studies evaluating the utility of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea as a positive control in carcinogenicity studies in the p53+/- mouse.
Hoivik DJ; Allen JS; Wall HG; Nold JB; Miller RT; Santostefano MJ
Int J Toxicol; 2005; 24(5):349-56. PubMed ID: 16257854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
