599 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17369606)
21. [The relation between carcinogenesis and mutagenesis: a re-evaluation].
Bartsch H; Malaveille C
Bull Acad Natl Med; 1989 Nov; 173(8):1005-12; discussion 1013-5. PubMed ID: 2633853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Rationale of genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials: regulatory requirements and appropriateness of available OECD test guidelines.
Warheit DB; Donner EM
Nanotoxicology; 2010 Dec; 4():409-13. PubMed ID: 20925448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Determination of genetic toxicity and potential carcinogenicity in vitro--challenges post the Seventh Amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive.
Tweats DJ; Scott AD; Westmoreland C; Carmichael PL
Mutagenesis; 2007 Jan; 22(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 17142828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Screening assays for carcinogenic agents and mixtures: an appraisal based on data in the IARC Monograph series.
Bartsch H; Malaveille C
IARC Sci Publ; 1990; (104):65-74. PubMed ID: 2228144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Application of toxicogenomics to study mechanisms of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Aubrecht J; Kleinjans JC; Ahr HJ
Toxicol Lett; 2009 Apr; 186(1):36-44. PubMed ID: 18822359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Development of genotoxicity test procedures with Episkin, a reconstructed human skin model: towards new tools for in vitro risk assessment of dermally applied compounds?
Flamand N; Marrot L; Belaidi JP; Bourouf L; Dourille E; Feltes M; Meunier JR
Mutat Res; 2006 Jul; 606(1-2):39-51. PubMed ID: 16675293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The in vivo comet assay: use and status in genotoxicity testing.
Brendler-Schwaab S; Hartmann A; Pfuhler S; Speit G
Mutagenesis; 2005 Jul; 20(4):245-54. PubMed ID: 15899933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH).
Lilienblum W; Dekant W; Foth H; Gebel T; Hengstler JG; Kahl R; Kramer PJ; Schweinfurth H; Wollin KM
Arch Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 82(4):211-36. PubMed ID: 18322675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. In vivo Comet assay on isolated kidney cells to distinguish genotoxic carcinogens from epigenetic carcinogens or cytotoxic compounds.
Nesslany F; Zennouche N; Simar-Meintières S; Talahari I; Nkili-Mboui EN; Marzin D
Mutat Res; 2007 Jun; 630(1-2):28-41. PubMed ID: 17507283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part IV: Recommendation of a working group of the Gesellschaft fuer Umwelt-Mutationsforschung (GUM) for a simple and straightforward approach to genotoxicity testing.
Pfuhler S; Albertini S; Fautz R; Herbold B; Madle S; Utesch D; Poth A;
Toxicol Sci; 2007 Jun; 97(2):237-40. PubMed ID: 17303579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Alternative test methods in inhalation toxicology: challenges and opportunities.
Costa DL
Exp Toxicol Pathol; 2008 Jun; 60(2-3):105-9. PubMed ID: 18486462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation Part VII: Why not start with a single test: a transformational alternative to genotoxicity hazard and risk assessment.
Ku WW; Aubrecht J; Mauthe RJ; Schiestl RH; Fornace AJ
Toxicol Sci; 2007 Sep; 99(1):20-5. PubMed ID: 17548889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Literature review on the genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity of ethyl methanesulfonate.
Gocke E; Bürgin H; Müller L; Pfister T
Toxicol Lett; 2009 Nov; 190(3):254-65. PubMed ID: 19857796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Further development of the EpiDerm 3D reconstructed human skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay.
Mun GC; Aardema MJ; Hu T; Barnett B; Kaluzhny Y; Klausner M; Karetsky V; Dahl EL; Curren RD
Mutat Res; 2009 Mar; 673(2):92-9. PubMed ID: 19167515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
