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.
135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2215543)
21. Strategies for the identification of rodent carcinogens by in vitro short-term tests. Zeiger E Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():261-71. PubMed ID: 2371299 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens. Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Learning rules to predict rodent carcinogenicity of non-genotoxic chemicals. Lee Y; Buchanan BG; Mattison DM; Klopman G; Rosenkranz HS Mutat Res; 1995 May; 328(2):127-49. PubMed ID: 7739598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The optimal design of batteries of short-term tests for detecting carcinogens. Heinze JE; Poulsen NK Mutat Res; 1983; 117(3-4):259-69. PubMed ID: 6343853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: premises, promises, and performance. Zeiger E Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Oct; 28(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 9927558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity utilizing a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests. Kim BS; Margolin BH Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 34(4):297-304. PubMed ID: 10618179 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. An opinion on the significance of the 19 non-clastogenic gene-mutagens reported by Tennant et al. (1987). Ashby J Mutagenesis; 1988 Nov; 3(6):463-5. PubMed ID: 3070284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Quantification of the predictivity of some short-term assays for carcinogenicity in rodents. Klopman G; Rosenkranz HS Mutat Res; 1991 Dec; 253(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 1720198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Mutagens that are not carcinogens: faulty theory or faulty tests? Zeiger E Mutat Res; 2001 May; 492(1-2):29-38. PubMed ID: 11377241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The challenge of testing chemicals for potential carcinogenicity using multiple short-term assays: an analysis of a proposed test battery for hair dyes. Rosenkranz HS; Cunningham SL; Mermelstein R; Cunningham AR Mutat Res; 2007 Sep; 633(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 17625954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluation of the Salmonella umu test with 83 NTP chemicals. Yasunaga K; Kiyonari A; Oikawa T; Abe N; Yoshikawa K Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 44(4):329-45. PubMed ID: 15476194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison between rodent carcinogenicity test results of 44 chemicals and a number of predictive systems. Lewis DF Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 1):215-22. PubMed ID: 7724831 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Relationship between carcinogenicity in rodents and the induction of sister chromatid exchanges and chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Rosenkranz HS; Ennever FK; Klopman G Mutagenesis; 1990 Nov; 5(6):559-71. PubMed ID: 2263214 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Mathematical models for exploring different aspects of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity databases. Benigni R; Giuliani A Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():81-4. PubMed ID: 1820283 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Mathematical parameters for quantification of mutational responses in bacteria. Roldán-Arjona T; Pueyo C; Haynes RH Mutat Res; 1995 Feb; 346(2):77-84. PubMed ID: 7885403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. An approach to identifying specialized batteries of bioassays for specific classes of chemicals: class analysis using mutagenicity and carcinogenicity relationships and phylogenetic concordance and discordance patterns. 1. Composition and analysis of the overall data base. A report of phase II of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Ray VA; Kier LD; Kannan KL; Haas RT; Auletta AE; Wassom JS; Nesnow S; Waters MD Mutat Res; 1987 May; 185(3):197-241. PubMed ID: 3574331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Response of the ke test to NCI/NTP-screened chemicals. I. Non-genotoxic carcinogens and genotoxic non-carcinogens. Bakale G; McCreary RD Carcinogenesis; 1990 Oct; 11(10):1811-8. PubMed ID: 2208594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. What indication is common to different genotoxicity data bases? Benigni R; Giuliani A Mutat Res; 1991 Oct; 253(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 1922137 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Predicting rodent carcinogenicity using potency measures of the in vitro sister chromatid exchange and chromosome aberration assays. Schildcrout JS; Margolin BH; Zeiger E Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 33(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 10037324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]