3336 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15979392)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Failure of the standard battery of short-term tests in detecting some rodent and human genotoxic carcinogens.
Brambilla G; Martelli A
Toxicology; 2004 Mar; 196(1-2):1-19. PubMed ID: 15036752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The micronucleus test and NTP rodent carcinogens: not so many false negatives.
Galloway SM
Mutat Res; 1996 Jun; 352(1-2):185-8. PubMed ID: 8676909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development.
Westerink WM; Stevenson JC; Lauwers A; Griffioen G; Horbach GJ; Schoonen WG
Mutat Res; 2009 May; 676(1-2):113-30. PubMed ID: 19393335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Collaborative study on fifteen compounds in the rat-liver Comet assay integrated into 2- and 4-week repeat-dose studies.
Rothfuss A; O'Donovan M; De Boeck M; Brault D; Czich A; Custer L; Hamada S; Plappert-Helbig U; Hayashi M; Howe J; Kraynak AR; van der Leede BJ; Nakajima M; Priestley C; Thybaud V; Saigo K; Sawant S; Shi J; Storer R; Struwe M; Vock E; Galloway S
Mutat Res; 2010 Sep; 702(1):40-69. PubMed ID: 20656055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The comet assay with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database.
Sasaki YF; Sekihashi K; Izumiyama F; Nishidate E; Saga A; Ishida K; Tsuda S
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2000 Nov; 30(6):629-799. PubMed ID: 11145306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the in vivo genotoxic potential of three carcinogenic aromatic amines using the Big Blue transgenic mouse mutation assay.
Suter W; Ahiabor R; Blanco B; Locher F; Mantovani F; Robinson M; Sreenan G; Staedtler F; Swingler T; Vignutelli A; Perentes E
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 28(4):354-62. PubMed ID: 8991064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
