210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21824406)
1. A genomic biomarker signature can predict skin sensitizers using a cell-based in vitro alternative to animal tests.
Johansson H; Lindstedt M; Albrekt AS; Borrebaeck CA
BMC Genomics; 2011 Aug; 12():399. PubMed ID: 21824406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic allergen rapid detection in-house validation--a proof of concept.
Johansson H; Rydnert F; Kühnl J; Schepky A; Borrebaeck C; Lindstedt M
Toxicol Sci; 2014 Jun; 139(2):362-70. PubMed ID: 24675087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The GARD assay for assessment of chemical skin sensitizers.
Johansson H; Albrekt AS; Borrebaeck CA; Lindstedt M
Toxicol In Vitro; 2013 Apr; 27(3):1163-9. PubMed ID: 23032079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Non-animal assessment of skin sensitization hazard: Is an integrated testing strategy needed, and if so what should be integrated?
Roberts DW; Patlewicz G
J Appl Toxicol; 2018 Jan; 38(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 28543848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of high throughput gene expression platforms using a genomic biomarker signature for prediction of skin sensitization.
Forreryd A; Johansson H; Albrekt AS; Lindstedt M
BMC Genomics; 2014 May; 15(1):379. PubMed ID: 24886304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can currently available non-animal methods detect pre and pro-haptens relevant for skin sensitization?
Patlewicz G; Casati S; Basketter DA; Asturiol D; Roberts DW; Lepoittevin JP; Worth AP; Aschberger K
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Dec; 82():147-155. PubMed ID: 27569201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A new in vitro method for identifying chemical sensitizers combining peptide binding with ARE/EpRE-mediated gene expression in human skin cells.
McKim JM; Keller DJ; Gorski JR
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2010 Sep; 29(3):171-92. PubMed ID: 20491607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reconstructed human epidermis-based testing strategy of skin sensitization potential and potency classification using epidermal sensitization assay and in silico data.
Mizumachi H; Suzuki S; Sakuma M; Natsui M; Imai N; Miyazawa M
J Appl Toxicol; 2024 Mar; 44(3):415-427. PubMed ID: 37846211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Data integration of non-animal tests for the development of a test battery to predict the skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals.
Nukada Y; Miyazawa M; Kazutoshi S; Sakaguchi H; Nishiyama N
Toxicol In Vitro; 2013 Mar; 27(2):609-18. PubMed ID: 23149339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An in vitro method for detecting chemical sensitization using human reconstructed skin models and its applicability to cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and medical device safety testing.
McKim JM; Keller DJ; Gorski JR
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2012 Dec; 31(4):292-305. PubMed ID: 22494060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.
Zang Q; Paris M; Lehmann DM; Bell S; Kleinstreuer N; Allen D; Matheson J; Jacobs A; Casey W; Strickland J
J Appl Toxicol; 2017 Jul; 37(7):792-805. PubMed ID: 28074598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays.
Schneider K; Akkan Z
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2004 Jun; 39(3):245-55. PubMed ID: 15135206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. From genome-wide arrays to tailor-made biomarker readout - Progress towards routine analysis of skin sensitizing chemicals with GARD.
Forreryd A; Zeller KS; Lindberg T; Johansson H; Lindstedt M
Toxicol In Vitro; 2016 Dec; 37():178-188. PubMed ID: 27638055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Skin sensitizers differentially regulate signaling pathways in MUTZ-3 cells in relation to their individual potency.
Albrekt AS; Johansson H; Börje A; Borrebaeck C; Lindstedt M
BMC Pharmacol Toxicol; 2014 Feb; 15():5. PubMed ID: 24517095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The local lymph node assay and skin sensitization: a cut-down screen to reduce animal requirements?
Kimber I; Dearman RJ; Betts CJ; Gerberick GF; Ryan CA; Kern PS; Patlewicz GY; Basketter DA
Contact Dermatitis; 2006 Apr; 54(4):181-5. PubMed ID: 16650091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An in vitro human skin test for assessing sensitization potential.
Ahmed SS; Wang XN; Fielding M; Kerry A; Dickinson I; Munuswamy R; Kimber I; Dickinson AM
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 May; 36(5):669-84. PubMed ID: 26251951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictive performance for human skin sensitizing potential of the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT).
Nukada Y; Ashikaga T; Sakaguchi H; Sono S; Mugita N; Hirota M; Miyazawa M; Ito Y; Sasa H; Nishiyama N
Contact Dermatitis; 2011 Dec; 65(6):343-53. PubMed ID: 21767275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The GARD platform for potency assessment of skin sensitizing chemicals.
Zeller KS; Forreryd A; Lindberg T; Gradin R; Chawade A; Lindstedt M
ALTEX; 2017; 34(4):539-559. PubMed ID: 29156079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Application of BALB/c mouse in the local lymph node assay:BrdU-ELISA for the prediction of the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals.
Hou F; Xing C; Li B; Cheng J; Chen W; Zhang M
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2015; 72():53-8. PubMed ID: 25600862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Novel approach for classifying chemicals according to skin sensitizing potency by non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay.
Takeyoshi M; Iida K; Shiraishi K; Hoshuyama S
J Appl Toxicol; 2005; 25(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 15744759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
