BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3317326)

  • 1. What's new in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity--status of short-term assay systems as tools in genetic toxicology and carcinogenesis.
    Pool BL; Schmähl D
    Pathol Res Pract; 1987 Oct; 182(5):704-12. PubMed ID: 3317326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: an appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes.
    Kirkland DJ; Henderson L; Marzin D; Müller L; Parry JM; Speit G; Tweats DJ; Williams GM
    Mutat Res; 2005 Dec; 588(2):88-105. PubMed ID: 16326131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
    Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
    EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
    Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies of antihypertensive agents.
    Brambilla G; Martelli A
    Mutat Res; 2006 Mar; 612(2):115-49. PubMed ID: 16458045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
    Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The relation between carcinogenesis and mutagenesis: a re-evaluation].
    Bartsch H; Malaveille C
    Bull Acad Natl Med; 1989 Nov; 173(8):1005-12; discussion 1013-5. PubMed ID: 2633853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Failure of the standard battery of short-term tests in detecting some rodent and human genotoxic carcinogens.
    Brambilla G; Martelli A
    Toxicology; 2004 Mar; 196(1-2):1-19. PubMed ID: 15036752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening assays for carcinogenic agents and mixtures: an appraisal based on data in the IARC Monograph series.
    Bartsch H; Malaveille C
    IARC Sci Publ; 1990; (104):65-74. PubMed ID: 2228144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.
    Ku WW; Bigger A; Brambilla G; Glatt H; Gocke E; Guzzie PJ; Hakura A; Honma M; Martus HJ; Obach RS; Roberts S;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):59-77. PubMed ID: 17141553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
    Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
    Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
    IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results.
    Kirkland DJ; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Carmichael P; Fautz R; Meunier JR; Pfuhler S
    Mutagenesis; 2007 May; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of gastrointestinal drugs.
    Brambilla G; Mattioli F; Martelli A
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Jul; 25(4):315-26. PubMed ID: 20478972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
    Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
    Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development.
    Westerink WM; Stevenson JC; Lauwers A; Griffioen G; Horbach GJ; Schoonen WG
    Mutat Res; 2009 May; 676(1-2):113-30. PubMed ID: 19393335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.