392 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20801182)
1. Toxicogenomics and cancer risk assessment: a framework for key event analysis and dose-response assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens.
Bercu JP; Jolly RA; Flagella KM; Baker TK; Romero P; Stevens JL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010 Dec; 58(3):369-81. PubMed ID: 20801182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.
Preston RJ
Chem Biol Interact; 2007 Mar; 166(1-3):150-5. PubMed ID: 16647696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Characterizing and predicting carcinogenicity and mode of action using conventional and toxicogenomics methods.
Waters MD; Jackson M; Lea I
Mutat Res; 2010 Dec; 705(3):184-200. PubMed ID: 20399889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of the expression profiles induced by genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens in rat liver.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Stuart B; Wahle B; Bomann W; Ahr HJ
Mutat Res; 2005 Aug; 575(1-2):61-84. PubMed ID: 15890375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic carcinogens case study: Cyclophosphamide.
McCarroll N; Keshava N; Cimino M; Chu M; Dearfield K; Keshava C; Kligerman A; Owen R; Protzel A; Putzrath R; Schoeny R
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2008 Mar; 49(2):117-31. PubMed ID: 18240158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Case study on the utility of hepatic global gene expression profiling in the risk assessment of the carcinogen furan.
Jackson AF; Williams A; Recio L; Waters MD; Lambert IB; Yauk CL
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2014 Jan; 274(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 24183702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.
Kirman CR; Sweeney LM; Teta MJ; Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Albertini RJ; Gargas ML
Risk Anal; 2004 Oct; 24(5):1165-83. PubMed ID: 15563286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A toxicogenomics approach for early assessment of potential non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenicity of chemicals in rats.
Uehara T; Hirode M; Ono A; Kiyosawa N; Omura K; Shimizu T; Mizukawa Y; Miyagishima T; Nagao T; Urushidani T
Toxicology; 2008 Aug; 250(1):15-26. PubMed ID: 18619722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Application of transcriptional benchmark dose values in quantitative cancer and noncancer risk assessment.
Thomas RS; Clewell HJ; Allen BC; Wesselkamper SC; Wang NC; Lambert JC; Hess-Wilson JK; Zhao QJ; Andersen ME
Toxicol Sci; 2011 Mar; 120(1):194-205. PubMed ID: 21097997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Integrating toxicogenomics into human health risk assessment: lessons learned from the benzo[a]pyrene case study.
Chepelev NL; Moffat ID; Labib S; Bourdon-Lacombe J; Kuo B; Buick JK; Lemieux F; Malik AI; Halappanavar S; Williams A; Yauk CL
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2015 Jan; 45(1):44-52. PubMed ID: 25605027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Acrylamide: review of toxicity data and dose-response analyses for cancer and noncancer effects.
Shipp A; Lawrence G; Gentry R; McDonald T; Bartow H; Bounds J; Macdonald N; Clewell H; Allen B; Van Landingham C
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(6-7):481-608. PubMed ID: 16973444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk.
Holsapple MP; Pitot HC; Cohen SM; Boobis AR; Klaunig JE; Pastoor T; Dellarco VL; Dragan YP
Toxicol Sci; 2006 Jan; 89(1):51-6. PubMed ID: 16221960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Predictive toxicogenomics approaches reveal underlying molecular mechanisms of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity.
Nie AY; McMillian M; Parker JB; Leone A; Bryant S; Yieh L; Bittner A; Nelson J; Carmen A; Wan J; Lord PG
Mol Carcinog; 2006 Dec; 45(12):914-33. PubMed ID: 16921489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose.
Gaylor DW; Swirsky Gold L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):222-5. PubMed ID: 10049793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessing compound carcinogenicity in vitro using connectivity mapping.
Caiment F; Tsamou M; Jennen D; Kleinjans J
Carcinogenesis; 2014 Jan; 35(1):201-7. PubMed ID: 23940306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde and nasal cytotoxicity: case study within the context of the 2006 IPCS Human Framework for the Analysis of a cancer mode of action for humans.
McGregor D; Bolt H; Cogliano V; Richter-Reichhelm HB
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2006; 36(10):821-35. PubMed ID: 17118731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Chloroform mode of action: implications for cancer risk assessment.
Golden RJ; Holm SE; Robinson DE; Julkunen PH; Reese EA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 26(2):142-55. PubMed ID: 9356278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prediction model of potential hepatocarcinogenicity of rat hepatocarcinogens using a large-scale toxicogenomics database.
Uehara T; Minowa Y; Morikawa Y; Kondo C; Maruyama T; Kato I; Nakatsu N; Igarashi Y; Ono A; Hayashi H; Mitsumori K; Yamada H; Ohno Y; Urushidani T
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2011 Sep; 255(3):297-306. PubMed ID: 21784091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Editor's Highlight: Organ-Specific Epigenetic Changes Induced by the Nongenotoxic Liver Carcinogen Methapyrilene in Fischer 344 Rats.
Shpyleva S; Dreval K; de Conti A; Kindrat I; Melnyk S; Yan J; Chen T; Beland FA; Pogribny IP
Toxicol Sci; 2017 Mar; 156(1):190-198. PubMed ID: 28013212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
