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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18958723)

  • 1. Primary immune response to sheep red blood cells (SRBC) as the conventional T-cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) test.
    Ladics GS
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Apr; 4(2):149-52. PubMed ID: 18958723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of SRBC antibody responses for immunotoxicity testing.
    Ladics GS
    Methods; 2007 Jan; 41(1):9-19. PubMed ID: 17161298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interlaboratory study of the primary antibody response to sheep red blood cells in outbred rodents following exposure to cyclophosphamide or dexamethasone.
    Loveless SE; Ladics GS; Smith C; Holsapple MP; Woolhiser MR; White KL; Musgrove DL; Smialowicz RJ; Williams W
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Jul; 4(3):233-8. PubMed ID: 18958733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Immunotoxicity evaluation by immune function tests: focus on the T-dependent antibody response (TDAR) [Overview of a Workshop Session at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT) March 5-9, 2006 San Diego, CA].
    Herzyk DJ; Holsapple M
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Apr; 4(2):143-7. PubMed ID: 18958722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of primary immune responses to SRBC and KLH in rodents.
    White KL; Sheth CM; Peachee VL
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Apr; 4(2):153-8. PubMed ID: 18958724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. T-dependent antigen response (TDAR) tests: meta-analysis of results generated across multiple laboratories.
    Bugelski PJ; Kim C
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Apr; 4(2):159-64. PubMed ID: 18958725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The sheep erythrocyte T-dependent antibody response (TDAR).
    White KL; Musgrove DL; Brown RD
    Methods Mol Biol; 2010; 598():173-84. PubMed ID: 19967513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In vivo functional tests for assessing immunotoxicity in birds.
    Grasman KA
    Methods Mol Biol; 2010; 598():387-98. PubMed ID: 19967526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessment of the functional integrity of the humoral immune response: the plaque-forming cell assay and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
    Wilson SD; Munson AE; Meade BJ
    Methods; 1999 Sep; 19(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 10525432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Testing human biologicals in animal host resistance models.
    Burleson GR; Burleson FG
    J Immunotoxicol; 2008 Jan; 5(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 18382855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of ELISA and plaque-forming cell assays for measuring the humoral immune response to SRBC in rats and mice treated with benzo[a]pyrene or cyclophosphamide.
    Temple L; Kawabata TT; Munson AE; White KL
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1993 Nov; 21(4):412-9. PubMed ID: 8253294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Specific antibody responses of primary cells from different cell sources are able to predict immunotoxicity in vitro.
    Fischer A; Koeper LM; Vohr HW
    Toxicol In Vitro; 2011 Dec; 25(8):1966-73. PubMed ID: 21762774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Immune function tests for hazard identification: a paradigm shift in drug development.
    Gore ER
    Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2006 Apr; 98(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 16623854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acetone in drinking water does not modulate humoral immunity in mice as measured by the antibody, plaque-forming cell assay.
    Woolhiser MR; Houtman CE; Waechter JM
    Int J Toxicol; 2006; 25(5):333-9. PubMed ID: 16940005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Use of whole sheep red blood cells in ELISA to assess immunosuppression in vivo.
    Koganei A; Tsuchiya T; Samura K; Nishikibe M
    J Immunotoxicol; 2007 Jan; 4(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 18958715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Approaches and considerations for the assessment of immunotoxicity for environmental chemicals: a workshop summary.
    Boverhof DR; Ladics G; Luebke B; Botham J; Corsini E; Evans E; Germolec D; Holsapple M; Loveless SE; Lu H; van der Laan JW; White KL; Yang Y
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2014 Feb; 68(1):96-107. PubMed ID: 24280359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sensitivity of the SRBC PFC assay versus ELISA for detection of immunosuppression by TCDD and TCDD-like congeners.
    Johnson CW; Williams WC; Copeland CB; DeVito MJ; Smialowicz RJ
    Toxicology; 2000 Dec; 156(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 11162871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Sheep Erythrocyte T-Dependent Antibody Response (TDAR).
    Ladics GS
    Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1803():83-94. PubMed ID: 29882134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Demonstration of antibody and nonspecific immunoglobulin formation in a single cell].
    Sidorova EV; Beliaeva EL
    Biull Eksp Biol Med; 1980 Sep; 90(9):336-9. PubMed ID: 7426738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Studies on the mechanism by which antigen-specific IgG suppresses primary antibody responses: evidence for epitope masking and decreased localization of antigen in the spleen.
    Getahun A; Heyman B
    Scand J Immunol; 2009 Sep; 70(3):277-87. PubMed ID: 19703017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.