282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17333942)
1. [Efficiency of the prediction of carcinogenic activities of chemical substances based on scoring somatic mutations in the soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill].
Bittueva MM; Abilev SK; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 2007 Jan; 43(1):78-87. PubMed ID: 17333942
[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. 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]
4. [Efficiency of evaluating the carcinogenicity of chemical substances in short-term tests and the SAR model].
Tarasov VA; Tsarenko NA; Mel'nik VA; Mustafaev ON; Makedonov GP; Tarasov AV
Genetika; 2009 Dec; 45(12):1674-84. PubMed ID: 20198980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Principles of formalizing a quantitative evaluation of the genetic danger of chemical compounds for man].
Tarasov VA; Aslanian MM; Abilev SK
Genetika; 1999 Nov; 35(11):1585-99. PubMed ID: 10624578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Effectiveness of a battery of tests to assess the potential mutagenic danger of chemical compounds].
Tarasov VA; Abilev SK; Velibelkov RM; Aslanian MM
Genetika; 2003 Oct; 39(10):1406-17. PubMed ID: 14658346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Low efficiency of short-term tests in the assessment of the potential mutagenic hazard of chemical compounds to mammals].
Tarasov VA; Velibekov RM; Liubimova IK; Aslanian MM
Genetika; 2001 Jul; 37(7):1008-17. PubMed ID: 11558223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. [The evaluation of the genotoxic effects of samples of industrial and domestic sewage. II. The mutagenic and recombinant effects of sewage in the soybean (Glycine max. (L.)) test system].
Kan SV; Soldatov SP; Davronov ID
Nauchnye Doki Vyss Shkoly Biol Nauki; 1990; (1):109-15. PubMed ID: 2346766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Detection of carcinogenic compounds in the environment with special regard to tests on fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster)].
Krogulski A
Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 1992; 43(3-4):271-5. PubMed ID: 1308745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro testing for carcinogens and mutagens.
Santella RM
Occup Med; 1987; 2(1):39-46. PubMed ID: 3306977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic potency estimates.
Sanner T; Dybing E
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Feb; 96(2):131-9. PubMed ID: 15679476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Which rules for assembling short-term test batteries to predict carcinogenicity?
Benigni R; Giuliani A
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(2-3):143-66. PubMed ID: 3449755
[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. Mutagenicity assessment of acrylate and methacrylate compounds and implications for regulatory toxicology requirements.
Johannsen FR; Vogt B; Waite M; Deskin R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Apr; 50(3):322-35. PubMed ID: 18346829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.
Kamber M; Flückiger-Isler S; Engelhardt G; Jaeckh R; Zeiger E
Mutagenesis; 2009 Jul; 24(4):359-66. PubMed ID: 19447896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Prospects for using the SOS-Chromotest for predicting carcinogenic activity of chemical compounds].
Koreshkova SV; Tanirbergenov TB; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 1995 Jun; 31(6):861-4. PubMed ID: 7635324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
