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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3449755)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. Rational approach to the evaluation of short-term tests: analysis of a homogeneous data base.
    Benigni R; Giuliani A
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1985; 16(3-4):333-53. PubMed ID: 4087307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Interrelationships among carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, acute toxicity, and chemical structure in a genotoxicity data base.
    Benigni R; Andreoli C; Giuliani A
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1989; 27(1):1-20. PubMed ID: 2724362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The ability of short-term tests to predict carcinogenicity can be summarized in a single index.
    Benigni R
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1991 Sep; 34(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 1890692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Identification of potential biomarkers of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells by cDNA microarray analysis.
    Kim JY; Kwon J; Kim JE; Koh WS; Chung MK; Yoon S; Song CW; Lee M
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2005; 45(1):80-9. PubMed ID: 15612046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Computer-assisted analysis of interlaboratory Ames test variability.
    Benigni R; Giuliani A
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1988; 25(1):135-48. PubMed ID: 3418743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Computer-aided analysis of mutagenicity and cell transformation data for assessing their relationship with carcinogenicity.
    Taningher M; Malacarne D; Perrotta A; Parodi S
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 33(3):226-39. PubMed ID: 10334625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.