258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31243984)
21. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
Kirkland D; Pfuhler S; Tweats D; Aardema M; Corvi R; Darroudi F; Elhajouji A; Glatt H; Hastwell P; Hayashi M; Kasper P; Kirchner S; Lynch A; Marzin D; Maurici D; Meunier JR; Müller L; Nohynek G; Parry J; Parry E; Thybaud V; Tice R; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; White P
Mutat Res; 2007 Mar; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Identification of environmental chemicals that activate p53 signaling after in vitro metabolic activation.
Ooka M; Zhao J; Shah P; Travers J; Klumpp-Thomas C; Xu X; Huang R; Ferguson S; Witt KL; Smith-Roe SL; Simeonov A; Xia M
Arch Toxicol; 2022 Jul; 96(7):1975-1987. PubMed ID: 35435491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Using Tox21 High-Throughput Screening Assays for the Evaluation of Botanical and Dietary Supplements.
Hubbard TD; Hsieh JH; Rider CV; Sipes NS; Sedykh A; Collins BJ; Auerbach SS; Xia M; Huang R; Walker NJ; DeVito MJ
Appl In Vitro Toxicol; 2019 Mar; 5(1):10-25. PubMed ID: 30944845
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Convenient, multi-well plate-based DNA damage response analysis using DT40 mutants is applicable to a high-throughput genotoxicity assay with characterization of modes of action.
Ridpath JR; Takeda S; Swenberg JA; Nakamura J
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2011 Mar; 52(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 20839229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Genotoxic potentials and related mechanisms of bisphenol A and other bisphenol compounds: a comparison study employing chicken DT40 cells.
Lee S; Liu X; Takeda S; Choi K
Chemosphere; 2013 Sep; 93(2):434-40. PubMed ID: 23791112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Yeast-based genotoxicity tests for assessing DNA alterations and DNA stress responses: a 40-year overview.
Eki T
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol; 2018 Mar; 102(6):2493-2507. PubMed ID: 29423630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Emerging metrology for high-throughput nanomaterial genotoxicology.
Nelson BC; Wright CW; Ibuki Y; Moreno-Villanueva M; Karlsson HL; Hendriks G; Sims CM; Singh N; Doak SH
Mutagenesis; 2017 Jan; 32(1):215-232. PubMed ID: 27565834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of the microgel electrophoresis assay and other assays for genotoxicity in the detection of DNA damage.
Monteith DK; Vanstone J
Mutat Res; 1995 Dec; 345(3-4):97-103. PubMed ID: 8552141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The future of toxicity testing: a focus on in vitro methods using a quantitative high-throughput screening platform.
Shukla SJ; Huang R; Austin CP; Xia M
Drug Discov Today; 2010 Dec; 15(23-24):997-1007. PubMed ID: 20708096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Mutant cells defective in DNA repair pathways provide a sensitive high-throughput assay for genotoxicity.
Evans TJ; Yamamoto KN; Hirota K; Takeda S
DNA Repair (Amst); 2010 Dec; 9(12):1292-8. PubMed ID: 21030320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity.
Sedykh A; Zhu H; Tang H; Zhang L; Richard A; Rusyn I; Tropsha A
Environ Health Perspect; 2011 Mar; 119(3):364-70. PubMed ID: 20980217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Validation of a human cell based high-throughput genotoxicity assay 'Anthem's Genotoxicity screen' using ECVAM recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals.
Rajakrishna L; Krishnan Unni S; Subbiah M; Sadagopan S; Nair AR; Chandrappa R; Sambasivam G; Sukumaran SK
Toxicol In Vitro; 2014 Feb; 28(1):46-53. PubMed ID: 23850743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Genotoxicity of compounds from cooked beef in repair-deficient CHO cells versus Salmonella mutagenicity.
Thompson LH; Tucker JD; Stewart SA; Christensen ML; Salazar EP; Carrano AV; Felton JS
Mutagenesis; 1987 Nov; 2(6):483-7. PubMed ID: 3328038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Investigating the Generalizability of the MultiFlow ® DNA Damage Assay and Several Companion Machine Learning Models With a Set of 103 Diverse Test Chemicals.
Bryce SM; Bernacki DT; Smith-Roe SL; Witt KL; Bemis JC; Dertinger SD
Toxicol Sci; 2018 Mar; 162(1):146-166. PubMed ID: 29106658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The BlueScreen HC assay to predict the genotoxic potential of fragrance materials.
Thakkar Y; Joshi K; Hickey C; Wahler J; Wall B; Etter S; Smith B; Griem P; Tate M; Jones F; Oudraogo G; Pfuhler S; Choi C; Williams G; Greim H; Eisenbrand G; Dekant W; Api AM
Mutagenesis; 2022 Apr; 37(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 35302169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Performance of the BG1Luc ER TA method in a qHTS format.
Ceger P; Allen D; Huang R; Xia M; Casey W
ALTEX; 2015; 32(4):287-96. PubMed ID: 26117232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Determination of genotoxic potential by comparison of structurally related azo dyes using DNA repair-deficient DT40 mutant panels.
Ooka M; Kobayashi K; Abe T; Akiyama K; Hada M; Takeda S; Hirota K
Chemosphere; 2016 Dec; 164():106-112. PubMed ID: 27580264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Genotoxic effects of environmental estrogen-like compounds in CHO-K1 cells.
Tayama S; Nakagawa Y; Tayama K
Mutat Res; 2008 Jan; 649(1-2):114-25. PubMed ID: 17913570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Mode-of-action analysis of the effects induced by nicotine in the in vitro micronucleus assay.
Smart DJ; Helbling FR; Verardo M; McHugh D; Vanscheeuwijck P
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2019 Dec; 60(9):778-791. PubMed ID: 31294873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluation of a genotoxicity test measuring DNA-strand breaks in mouse lymphoma cells by alkaline unwinding and hydroxyapatite elution.
Garberg P; Akerblom EL; Bolcsfoldi G
Mutat Res; 1988 Jun; 203(3):155-76. PubMed ID: 2836728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
