These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

327 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17123861)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.
    Ku WW; Bigger A; Brambilla G; Glatt H; Gocke E; Guzzie PJ; Hakura A; Honma M; Martus HJ; Obach RS; Roberts S;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):59-77. PubMed ID: 17141553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. Considerations on photochemical genotoxicity. II: report of the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing Working Group.
    Lynch AM; Guzzie PJ; Bauer D; Gocke E; Itoh S; Jacobs A; Krul CA; Schepky A; Tanaka N; Kasper P
    Mutat Res; 2011 Aug; 723(2):91-100. PubMed ID: 21296679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests: a follow-up to an ECVAM workshop.
    Kirkland D; Kasper P; Müller L; Corvi R; Speit G
    Mutat Res; 2008 May; 653(1-2):99-108. PubMed ID: 18539078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 14. Report of the IWGT working group on strategies and interpretation of regulatory in vivo tests I. Increases in micronucleated bone marrow cells in rodents that do not indicate genotoxic hazards.
    Tweats DJ; Blakey D; Heflich RH; Jacobs A; Jacobsen SD; Morita T; Nohmi T; O'Donovan MR; Sasaki YF; Sofuni T; Tice R;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):78-91. PubMed ID: 17116417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Improvement of in vivo genotoxicity assessment: combination of acute tests and integration into standard toxicity testing.
    Rothfuss A; Honma M; Czich A; Aardema MJ; Burlinson B; Galloway S; Hamada S; Kirkland D; Heflich RH; Howe J; Nakajima M; O'Donovan M; Plappert-Helbig U; Priestley C; Recio L; Schuler M; Uno Y; Martus HJ
    Mutat Res; 2011 Aug; 723(2):108-20. PubMed ID: 21182982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: meeting of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing, San Francisco, 2005, recommendations for 24-h treatment.
    Moore MM; Honma M; Clements J; Bolcsfoldi G; Burlinson B; Cifone M; Clarke J; Clay P; Doppalapudi R; Fellows M; Gollapudi B; Hou S; Jenkinson P; Muster W; Pant K; Kidd DA; Lorge E; Lloyd M; Myhr B; O'Donovan M; Riach C; Stankowski LF; Thakur AK; Van Goethem F;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):36-40. PubMed ID: 17157054
    [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. 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]  

  • 19. Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part IV: a strategy in genotoxicity testing in drug development: some examples.
    Lorge E; Gervais V; Becourt-Lhote N; Maisonneuve C; Delongeas JL; Claude N
    Toxicol Sci; 2007 Jul; 98(1):39-42. PubMed ID: 17369197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The development of RAD51C, Cystatin A, p53 and Nrf2 luciferase-reporter assays in metabolically competent HepG2 cells for the assessment of mechanism-based genotoxicity and of oxidative stress in the early research phase of drug development.
    Westerink WM; Stevenson JC; Horbach GJ; Schoonen WG
    Mutat Res; 2010 Feb; 696(1):21-40. PubMed ID: 20006733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.