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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17445509)

  • 21. Constantly evolving safety assessment protocols for GM foods.
    Sesikeran B; Vasanthi S
    Asia Pac J Clin Nutr; 2008; 17 Suppl 1():241-4. PubMed ID: 18296346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A screening method for prioritizing non-target invertebrates for improved biosafety testing of transgenic crops.
    Todd JH; Ramankutty P; Barraclough EI; Malone LA
    Environ Biosafety Res; 2008; 7(1):35-56. PubMed ID: 18384728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Developing biosafety risk hypotheses for invertebrates exposed to GM plants using conceptual food webs: a case study with elevated triacylglyceride levels in ryegrass.
    Barratt BI; Todd JH; Burgess EP; Malone LA
    Environ Biosafety Res; 2010; 9(3):163-79. PubMed ID: 21975257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Response to Wilkinson & Tepfer's "Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters". Fuzzy reasoning and unacceptable change: defining and assessing an ambiguous endpoint.
    Harwood T
    Environ Biosafety Res; 2009; 8(1):15-6. PubMed ID: 19419649
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Gene flow, invasiveness, and ecological impact of genetically modified crops.
    Warwick SI; Beckie HJ; Hall LM
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2009 Jun; 1168():72-99. PubMed ID: 19566704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Identifying food proteins with allergenic potential: evolution of approaches to safety assessment and research to provide additional tools.
    Ladics GS; Selgrade MK
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Aug; 54(3 Suppl):S2-6. PubMed ID: 19028539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process.
    Dale VH; Biddinger GR; Newman MC; Oris JT; Suter GW; Thompson T; Armitage TM; Meyer JL; Allen-King RM; Burton GA; Chapman PM; Conquest LL; Fernandez IJ; Landis WG; Master LL; Mitsch WJ; Mueller TC; Rabeni CF; Rodewald AD; Sanders JG; van Heerden IL
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2008 Jul; 4(3):306-13. PubMed ID: 18324871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of protein safety in the context of agricultural biotechnology.
    Delaney B; Astwood JD; Cunny H; Conn RE; Herouet-Guicheney C; Macintosh S; Meyer LS; Privalle L; Gao Y; Mattsson J; Levine M;
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 May; 46 Suppl 2():S71-97. PubMed ID: 18348900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops.
    Smyth S; McHughen A
    Plant Biotechnol J; 2008 Apr; 6(3):213-25. PubMed ID: 18028290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Current issues connected with usage of genetically modified crops in production of feed and livestock feeding.
    Kwiatek K; Mazur M; Sieradzki Z
    Pol J Vet Sci; 2008; 11(4):411-4. PubMed ID: 19227143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comment on "Session V: estimating likelihood and exposure", by Zaida Lentini, Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 193-195.
    Digiovanni F; Kevan PG
    Environ Biosafety Res; 2008; 7(2):105-8; discussion 109-13. PubMed ID: 18549772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health.
    Magaña-Gómez JA; de la Barca AM
    Nutr Rev; 2009 Jan; 67(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 19146501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Early-tier tests insufficient for GMO risk assessment.
    Lang A; Lauber E; Darvas B
    Nat Biotechnol; 2007 Jan; 25(1):35-6; author reply 36-7. PubMed ID: 17211390
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Environmental regulation. U.S. courts say transgenic crops need tighter scrutiny.
    Charles D
    Science; 2007 Feb; 315(5815):1069. PubMed ID: 17322039
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. European disarray on transgenic crops.
    Abbott A
    Nature; 2009 Feb; 457(7232):946. PubMed ID: 19238685
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Response to Wilkinson & Tepfer's "Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters".
    Bartsch D
    Environ Biosafety Res; 2009; 8(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 19419650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants.
    Wolt JD; Keese P; Raybould A; Fitzpatrick JW; Burachik M; Gray A; Olin SS; Schiemann J; Sears M; Wu F
    Transgenic Res; 2010 Jun; 19(3):425-36. PubMed ID: 19757133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Problem formulation and phenotypic characterisation for the development of novel crops.
    Raybould A
    Transgenic Res; 2019 Aug; 28(Suppl 2):135-145. PubMed ID: 31321696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessing effects of transgenic crops on soil microbial communities.
    Widmer F
    Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol; 2007; 107():207-34. PubMed ID: 17522827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Protection goals in environmental risk assessment: a practical approach.
    Garcia-Alonso M; Raybould A
    Transgenic Res; 2014 Dec; 23(6):945-56. PubMed ID: 24154954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.