173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3317326)
21. Genotoxicity of environmental agents assessed by the alkaline comet assay.
Møller P
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005; 96 Suppl 1():1-42. PubMed ID: 15859009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Follow-up testing of rodent carcinogens not positive in the standard genotoxicity testing battery: IWGT workgroup report.
Kasper P; Uno Y; Mauthe R; Asano N; Douglas G; Matthews E; Moore M; Mueller L; Nakajima M; Singer T; Speit G;
Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):106-16. PubMed ID: 17123861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Prediction of a carcinogenic potential of rat hepatocarcinogens using toxicogenomics analysis of short-term in vivo studies.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Gmuender H; Bandenburg A; Ahr HJ
Mutat Res; 2008 Jan; 637(1-2):23-39. PubMed ID: 17689568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. SOS chromotest results in a broader context: empirical relationships between genotoxic potency, mutagenic potency, and carcinogenic potency.
White PA; Rasmussen JB
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 27(4):270-305. PubMed ID: 8665872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 1,3-butadiene: cancer, mutations, and adducts. Part II: Roles of two metabolites of 1,3-butadiene in mediating its in vivo genotoxicity.
Recio L; Saranko CJ; Steen AM
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2000 Mar; (92):49-87; discussion 141-9. PubMed ID: 10925839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH).
Lilienblum W; Dekant W; Foth H; Gebel T; Hengstler JG; Kahl R; Kramer PJ; Schweinfurth H; Wollin KM
Arch Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 82(4):211-36. PubMed ID: 18322675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Genotoxicity of carcinogenic substances in humans and animals].
Malaveille C; Bartsch H
J Toxicol Clin Exp; 1989; 9(2 Pt 2):15-25. PubMed ID: 2677321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 5,5-Diphenylhydantoin (CAS No. 57-41-0) (Phenytoin) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Feed Studies).
National Toxicology Program
Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser; 1993 Nov; 404():1-303. PubMed ID: 12621514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. In vivo Comet assay on isolated kidney cells to distinguish genotoxic carcinogens from epigenetic carcinogens or cytotoxic compounds.
Nesslany F; Zennouche N; Simar-Meintières S; Talahari I; Nkili-Mboui EN; Marzin D
Mutat Res; 2007 Jun; 630(1-2):28-41. PubMed ID: 17507283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of antipsychotics and antidepressants.
Brambilla G; Mattioli F; Martelli A
Toxicology; 2009 Jul; 261(3):77-88. PubMed ID: 19410629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of the expression profiles induced by genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens in rat liver.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Stuart B; Wahle B; Bomann W; Ahr HJ
Mutat Res; 2005 Aug; 575(1-2):61-84. PubMed ID: 15890375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Structure-activity relationship analysis tools: validation and applicability in predicting carcinogens.
Mayer J; Cheeseman MA; Twaroski ML
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Feb; 50(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 18023949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Development of genotoxicity test procedures with Episkin, a reconstructed human skin model: towards new tools for in vitro risk assessment of dermally applied compounds?
Flamand N; Marrot L; Belaidi JP; Bourouf L; Dourille E; Feltes M; Meunier JR
Mutat Res; 2006 Jul; 606(1-2):39-51. PubMed ID: 16675293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection procedure: an in-depth analysis of cyclamate and its major metabolite cyclohexylamine.
Haimes YY; Chankong V; Pet-Edwards J; Rosenkranz HR
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(1):49-60. PubMed ID: 2452976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Nonmutagenic carcinogens induce intrachromosomal recombination in yeast.
Schiestl RH
Nature; 1989 Jan; 337(6204):285-8. PubMed ID: 2643057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Alternative strategies for carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Mutagenesis; 2011 May; 26(3):455-60. PubMed ID: 21398403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. An integrated in vitro carcinogenicity test that distinguishes between genotoxic carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-carcinogens.
Chapman KE; Shah UK; Fletcher JF; Johnson GE; Doak SH; Jenkins GJS
Mutagenesis; 2024 Mar; 39(2):69-77. PubMed ID: 38301659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
