410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17689568)
41. What's new in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity--status of short-term assay systems as tools in genetic toxicology and carcinogenesis.
Pool BL; Schmähl D
Pathol Res Pract; 1987 Oct; 182(5):704-12. PubMed ID: 3317326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Application of toxicogenomics to genetic toxicology risk assessment.
Thybaud V; Le Fevre AC; Boitier E
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2007 Jun; 48(5):369-79. PubMed ID: 17567850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Gene expression profiling in primary mouse hepatocytes discriminates true from false-positive genotoxic compounds.
Mathijs K; Brauers KJ; Jennen DG; Lizarraga D; Kleinjans JC; van Delft JH
Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov; 25(6):561-8. PubMed ID: 20650930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Identification of consensus biomarkers for predicting non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens.
Huang SH; Tung CW
Sci Rep; 2017 Jan; 7():41176. PubMed ID: 28117354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Discrimination for genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens by gene expression profiling in primary mouse hepatocytes improves with exposure time.
Mathijs K; Brauers KJ; Jennen DG; Boorsma A; van Herwijnen MH; Gottschalk RW; Kleinjans JC; van Delft JH
Toxicol Sci; 2009 Dec; 112(2):374-84. PubMed ID: 19770486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Quantitative proteomic analysis of rat liver for carcinogenicity prediction in a 28-day repeated dose study.
Yamanaka H; Yakabe Y; Saito K; Sekijima M; Shirai T
Proteomics; 2007 Mar; 7(5):781-95. PubMed ID: 17295351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. A novel toxicogenomics-based approach to categorize (non-)genotoxic carcinogens.
Schaap MM; Wackers PF; Zwart EP; Huijskens I; Jonker MJ; Hendriks G; Breit TM; van Steeg H; van de Water B; Luijten M
Arch Toxicol; 2015 Dec; 89(12):2413-27. PubMed ID: 25270620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 16352383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Transcriptomic responses generated by hepatocarcinogens in a battery of liver-based in vitro models.
Doktorova TY; Yildirimman R; Vinken M; Vilardell M; Vanhaecke T; Gmuender H; Bort R; Brolen G; Holmgren G; Li R; Chesne C; van Delft J; Kleinjans J; Castell J; Bjorquist P; Herwig R; Rogiers V
Carcinogenesis; 2013 Jun; 34(6):1393-402. PubMed ID: 23393228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):83-96. PubMed ID: 16386343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. 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]
53. A metabolomics investigation of non-genotoxic carcinogenicity in the rat.
Ament Z; Waterman CL; West JA; Waterfield C; Currie RA; Wright J; Griffin JL
J Proteome Res; 2013 Dec; 12(12):5775-90. PubMed ID: 24161236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Using microRNA profiles to predict and evaluate hepatic carcinogenic potential.
Gooderham NJ; Koufaris C
Toxicol Lett; 2014 Jul; 228(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 24793013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Value-of-information analysis of testing strategies: estimating the effect of uncertainty about the proportion of chemicals that are true human carcinogens.
Ennever FK; Rosenkranz HS; Lave LB; Omenn GS
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():295-304. PubMed ID: 2115175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Current and emerging challenges in toxicopathology: carcinogenic threshold of phenobarbital and proof of arsenic carcinogenicity using rat medium-term bioassays for carcinogens.
Fukushima S; Morimura K; Wanibuchi H; Kinoshita A; Salim EI
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2005 Sep; 207(2 Suppl):225-9. PubMed ID: 15993454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. 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]
58. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Gene expression profiles in rat liver slices exposed to hepatocarcinogenic enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, and 17alpha-ethinylestradiol.
Werle-Schneider G; Wölfelschneider A; von Brevern MC; Scheel J; Storck T; Müller D; Glöckner R; Bartsch H; Bartelmann M
Int J Toxicol; 2006; 25(5):379-95. PubMed ID: 16940010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Hepatic microRNA profiles offer predictive and mechanistic insights after exposure to genotoxic and epigenetic hepatocarcinogens.
Koufaris C; Wright J; Currie RA; Gooderham NJ
Toxicol Sci; 2012 Aug; 128(2):532-43. PubMed ID: 22584684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
