BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

602 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17369606)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
    Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
    Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis.
    Pfuhler S; Kirst A; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Goebel C; Araki D; Costabel-Farkas M; Dufour E; Fautz R; Harvey J; Hewitt NJ; Hibatallah J; Carmichael P; Macfarlane M; Reisinger K; Rowland J; Schellauf F; Schepky A; Scheel J
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010; 57(2-3):315-24. PubMed ID: 20382194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
    Kirkland D; Pfuhler S; Tweats D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Darroudi F; Elhajouji A; Glatt H; Hastwell P; Hayashi M; Kasper P; Kirchner S; Lynch A; Marzin D; Maurici D; Meunier JR; Müller L; Nohynek G; Parry J; Parry E; Thybaud V; Tice R; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; White P
    Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept--a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity.
    Müller L; Gocke E; Lavé T; Pfister T
    Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):317-29. PubMed ID: 19443141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests.
    Kirkland D; Kasper P; Martus HJ; Müller L; van Benthem J; Madia F; Corvi R
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2016 Jan; 795():7-30. PubMed ID: 26774663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
    Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.