187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2515120)
41. Multiple steps in carcinogenesis, multiple carcinogenic factors, and multiple primary tumors: can we develop an appropriate response for cancer prevention?
Nagao M; Sugimura T
Drug Metab Rev; 1998 May; 30(2):405-19. PubMed ID: 9606610
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.
Kamber M; Flückiger-Isler S; Engelhardt G; Jaeckh R; Zeiger E
Mutagenesis; 2009 Jul; 24(4):359-66. PubMed ID: 19447896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. [Short-term tests in the system of assessment of human carcinogens].
Belitskiĭ GA; Khudoleĭ VV
Vopr Onkol; 1986; 32(4):3-11. PubMed ID: 3518237
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo.
Kirkland D; Speit G
Mutat Res; 2008 Jul; 654(2):114-32. PubMed ID: 18585956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Strategies for the deployment of batteries of short-term tests.
Mutat Res; 1988; 205(1-4):1-423. PubMed ID: 3367917
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. 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]
47. Which rules for assembling short-term test batteries to predict carcinogenicity?
Benigni R; Giuliani A
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(2-3):143-66. PubMed ID: 3449755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Computer assisted short-term test battery design: some answers (reply to John Ashby's commentary in Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis).
Ennever FK; Rosenkranz HS
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1988; 12(4):349-52. PubMed ID: 3191915
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Identification of genotoxic stress in human cells by fluorescent monitoring of p53 expression.
Quiñones A; Rainov NG
Mutat Res; 2001 Jul; 494(1-2):73-85. PubMed ID: 11423347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Study on mutagenesis and carcinogenesis of productive nickel dust.
Zhong BZ; Li ZQ; Ma GY; Wang BS
Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340E():41-6. PubMed ID: 2392462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. An approach towards to standardization of the mammalian spot test.
Neuhäuser-Klaus A
Arch Toxicol; 1981 Nov; 48(4):229-43. PubMed ID: 6797384
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Examination of cell toxicity and dosing regimen in an in vitro chromosomal aberration assay.
Linscombe VA; Bodner KM; Gollapudi BB; Sinha AK
In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim; 1993 May; 29A(5):350-2. PubMed ID: 8267712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Relative percent cell survival and positive response in the in vitro micronucleus test.
Phelps JB; Hoffman WP; Garriott ML
Mutat Res; 2003 May; 537(1):115-6. PubMed ID: 12742513
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Comparison of effects of direct-acting DNA methylating and ethylating agents on inducible gene expression in vivo.
McCaffrey J; Hamilton JW
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1994; 23(3):164-70. PubMed ID: 8162889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Comparative effects of potassium dichromate on the mutagenicity of some nitrohydrocarbons and methylating agents.
Sakai K; Uchida R
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol; 1992 Apr; 48(4):541-8. PubMed ID: 1504499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. Mutagenicity studies in microorganisms in vitro, with extracts of mammalian organs, and with the host-mediated-assay.
Mohn G; Ellenberger J; McGregor D; Merker HJ
Mutat Res; 1975 Aug; 29(2):221-33. PubMed ID: 1102964
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Sex differences in the micronucleus test: true or false?
Holmstrom M
Mutagenesis; 1988 May; 3(3):177-8. PubMed ID: 3045480
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Mutagenicity of ethyleneimine.
Verschaeve L; Kirsch-Volders M
Mutat Res; 1990 Jan; 238(1):39-55. PubMed ID: 2406584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Re: analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing. Introduction to article by Sistare et al.
Morton D; Alden CL
Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):715. PubMed ID: 21666102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA as a tool for genotoxicity: an assessment.
Noel S; Rath SK
Toxicol Ind Health; 2006 Jul; 22(6):267-75. PubMed ID: 16924958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
