202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19334052)
21. 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]
22. Evaluation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development.
Westerink WM; Stevenson JC; Lauwers A; Griffioen G; Horbach GJ; Schoonen WG
Mutat Res; 2009 May; 676(1-2):113-30. PubMed ID: 19393335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The incidence of positive results in the mouse lymphoma TK assay (MLA) in pharmaceutical screening and their prediction by MultiCase MC4PC.
Fellows MD; Boyer S; O'Donovan MR
Mutagenesis; 2011 Jul; 26(4):529-32. PubMed ID: 21430064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Possible structural and functional determinants contributing to the clastogenicity of pharmaceuticals.
Snyder RD
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2010; 51(8-9):800-14. PubMed ID: 20872827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results.
Kirkland DJ; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Carmichael P; Fautz R; Meunier JR; Pfuhler S
Mutagenesis; 2007 May; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Can carcinogenic potency be predicted from in vivo genotoxicity data?: a meta-analysis of historical data.
Hernández LG; Slob W; van Steeg H; van Benthem J
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2011 Aug; 52(7):518-28. PubMed ID: 21542028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The influence of N-dialkyl and other cationic substituents on DNA intercalation and genotoxicity.
Snyder RD; McNulty J; Zairov G; Ewing DE; Hendry LB
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 578(1-2):88-99. PubMed ID: 15990125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Update of carcinogenicity studies in animals and humans of 535 marketed pharmaceuticals.
Brambilla G; Mattioli F; Robbiano L; Martelli A
Mutat Res; 2012; 750(1):1-51. PubMed ID: 21968027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cytotoxicity and chromosome aberrations in vitro: experience in industry and the case for an upper limit on toxicity in the aberration assay.
Galloway SM
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2000; 35(3):191-201. PubMed ID: 10737954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mutagenicity assessment of acrylate and methacrylate compounds and implications for regulatory toxicology requirements.
Johannsen FR; Vogt B; Waite M; Deskin R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Apr; 50(3):322-35. PubMed ID: 18346829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Appropriate levels of cytotoxicity for genotoxicity tests using mammalian cells in vitro.
Müller L; Sofuni T
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2000; 35(3):202-5. PubMed ID: 10737955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. In silico and in vitro genotoxicity evaluation of levofloxacin n-oxide, an impurity in levofloxacin.
Zhu Q; Li T; Li J; Guo M; Wang W; Zhang X
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2012 Apr; 22(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 22087570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Assessment of atypical DNA intercalating agents in biological and in silico systems.
Snyder RD
Mutat Res; 2007 Oct; 623(1-2):72-82. PubMed ID: 17434187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The computational prediction of genotoxicity.
Naven RT; Louise-May S; Greene N
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2010 Jul; 6(7):797-807. PubMed ID: 20528613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives.
Benfenati E; Benigni R; Demarini DM; Helma C; Kirkland D; Martin TM; Mazzatorta P; Ouédraogo-Arras G; Richard AM; Schilter B; Schoonen WG; Snyder RD; Yang C
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2009 Apr; 27(2):57-90. PubMed ID: 19412856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A compilation of two decades of mutagenicity test results with the Ames Salmonella typhimurium and L5178Y mouse lymphoma cell mutation assays.
Seifried HE; Seifried RM; Clarke JJ; Junghans TB; San RH
Chem Res Toxicol; 2006 May; 19(5):627-44. PubMed ID: 16696565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models.
Morita T; Shigeta Y; Kawamura T; Fujita Y; Honda H; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 30085209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. In vitro carcinogenicity testing: present and future perspectives in pharmaceutical development.
Kowalski LA
Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2001 Jan; 4(1):29-35. PubMed ID: 11727320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
