423 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19126422)
1. The transgenic mouse assay as an alternative test method for regulatory carcinogenicity studies--implications for REACH.
Wells MY; Williams ES
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Mar; 53(2):150-5. PubMed ID: 19126422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[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 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system.
Knight A; Bailey J; Balcombe J
Altern Lab Anim; 2006 Mar; 34 Suppl 1():139-47. PubMed ID: 16555967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The utility of genetically modified mouse assays for identifying human carcinogens: a basic understanding and path forward. The Alternatives to Carcinogenicity Testing Committee ILSI HESI.
MacDonald J; French JE; Gerson RJ; Goodman J; Inoue T; Jacobs A; Kasper P; Keller D; Lavin A; Long G; McCullough B; Sistare FD; Storer R; van der Laan JW
Toxicol Sci; 2004 Feb; 77(2):188-94. PubMed ID: 14657512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines.
Sistare FD; Morton D; Alden C; Christensen J; Keller D; Jonghe SD; Storer RD; Reddy MV; Kraynak A; Trela B; Bienvenu JG; Bjurström S; Bosmans V; Brewster D; Colman K; Dominick M; Evans J; Hailey JR; Kinter L; Liu M; Mahrt C; Marien D; Myer J; Perry R; Potenta D; Roth A; Sherratt P; Singer T; Slim R; Soper K; Fransson-Steen R; Stoltz J; Turner O; Turnquist S; van Heerden M; Woicke J; DeGeorge JJ
Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):716-44. PubMed ID: 21666103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Review of alternative methods of carcinogenicity testing and evaluation of human pharmaceuticals.
Van Deun K; Van Cauteren H; Vandenberghe J; Canning M; Vanparys P; Coussement W
Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev; 1997 Nov; 16(4):215-33. PubMed ID: 9608857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison and possible use of in silico tools for carcinogenicity within REACH legislation.
Milan C; Schifanella O; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2011 Oct; 29(4):300-23. PubMed ID: 22107165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Neonatal mouse assay for tumorigenicity: alternative to the chronic rodent bioassay.
Flammang TJ; Tungeln LS; Kadlubar FF; Fu PP
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):230-40. PubMed ID: 9356286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of genetically modified mouse models for evaluation of carcinogenic risk: considerations for the laboratory animal scientist.
Recio L; Everitt J
Comp Med; 2001 Oct; 51(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 11924798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop.
Lai DY; Baetcke KP; Vu VT; Cotruvo JA; Eustis SL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Apr; 19(2):183-201. PubMed ID: 8041916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Carcinogenic chemical-response "fingerprint" for male F344 rats exposed to a series of 195 chemicals: implications for predicting carcinogens with transgenic models.
Johnson FM
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):234-45. PubMed ID: 10618171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation.
Höfer T; Gerner I; Gundert-Remy U; Liebsch M; Schulte A; Spielmann H; Vogel R; Wettig K
Arch Toxicol; 2004 Oct; 78(10):549-64. PubMed ID: 15170526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Goodman JI
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The in vivo rodent test systems for assessment of carcinogenic potential.
van der Laan JW; Spindler P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 35(1):122-5. PubMed ID: 11846641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
