2368 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16769241)
1. 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]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Follow-up testing of rodent carcinogens not positive in the standard genotoxicity testing battery: IWGT workgroup report.
Kasper P; Uno Y; Mauthe R; Asano N; Douglas G; Matthews E; Moore M; Mueller L; Nakajima M; Singer T; Speit G;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):106-16. PubMed ID: 17123861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern.
Kirkland D; Fowler P
Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov; 25(6):539-53. PubMed ID: 20720197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies of antihypertensive agents.
Brambilla G; Martelli A
Mutat Res; 2006 Mar; 612(2):115-49. PubMed ID: 16458045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A Bhas 42 cell transformation assay on 98 chemicals: the characteristics and performance for the prediction of chemical carcinogenicity.
Sakai A; Sasaki K; Muramatsu D; Arai S; Endou N; Kuroda S; Hayashi K; Lim YM; Yamazaki S; Umeda M; Tanaka N
Mutat Res; 2010 Sep; 702(1):100-22. PubMed ID: 20656056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
