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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36345771)

  • 1. Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.
    Chepelev N; Long AS; Beal M; Barton-Maclaren T; Johnson G; Dearfield KL; Roberts DJ; van Benthem J; White P
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2023 Jan; 64(1):4-15. PubMed ID: 36345771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Empirical analysis of BMD metrics in genetic toxicology part II: in vivo potency comparisons to promote reductions in the use of experimental animals for genetic toxicity assessment.
    Wills JW; Long AS; Johnson GE; Bemis JC; Dertinger SD; Slob W; White PA
    Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):265-75. PubMed ID: 26984301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Letter to "Chepelev et al. Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data".
    Thompson CM; Proctor DM; Harris MA
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2023 Apr; 64(4):259-260. PubMed ID: 36916184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.
    O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Constable A; Dybing E; Müller DJ; Schlatter J; Slob W; Tueting W; van Benthem J; Williams GM; Wolfreys A
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1613-35. PubMed ID: 16887251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Can carcinogenic potency be predicted from in vivo genotoxicity data?: a meta-analysis of historical data.
    Hernández LG; Slob W; van Steeg H; van Benthem J
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2011 Aug; 52(7):518-28. PubMed ID: 21542028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing BMD-derived genotoxic potency estimations across variants of the transgenic rodent gene mutation assay.
    Wills JW; Johnson GE; Battaion HL; Slob W; White PA
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Dec; 58(9):632-643. PubMed ID: 28945287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The use of dose-response data in a margin of exposure approach to carcinogenic risk assessment for genotoxic chemicals in food.
    Benford DJ
    Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):329-31. PubMed ID: 26297741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo erythrocyte micronucleus and transgenic rodent gene mutation tests to detect rodent carcinogens.
    Morita T; Hamada S; Masumura K; Wakata A; Maniwa J; Takasawa H; Yasunaga K; Hashizume T; Honma M
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2016 May; 802():1-29. PubMed ID: 27169373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative Interpretation of Genetic Toxicity Dose-Response Data for Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-Making: Current Status and Emerging Priorities.
    White PA; Long AS; Johnson GE
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2020 Jan; 61(1):66-83. PubMed ID: 31794061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.
    Menz J; Götz ME; Gündel U; Gürtler R; Herrmann K; Hessel-Pras S; Kneuer C; Kolrep F; Nitzsche D; Pabel U; Sachse B; Schmeisser S; Schumacher DM; Schwerdtle T; Tralau T; Zellmer S; Schäfer B
    Arch Toxicol; 2023 Sep; 97(9):2303-2328. PubMed ID: 37402810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. MicotoXilico: An Interactive Database to Predict Mutagenicity, Genotoxicity, and Carcinogenicity of Mycotoxins.
    Tolosa J; Serrano Candelas E; Vallés Pardo JL; Goya A; Moncho S; Gozalbes R; Palomino Schätzlein M
    Toxins (Basel); 2023 May; 15(6):. PubMed ID: 37368656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Genotoxicity of 1,3-butadiene and its epoxy intermediates.
    Walker VE; Walker DM; Meng Q; McDonald JD; Scott BR; Seilkop SK; Claffey DJ; Upton PB; Powley MW; Swenberg JA; Henderson RF;
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2009 Aug; (144):3-79. PubMed ID: 20017413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
    Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Hydroquinone: an evaluation of the human risks from its carcinogenic and mutagenic properties.
    McGregor D
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2007; 37(10):887-914. PubMed ID: 18027166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The prospects for a simplified and internationally harmonized approach to the detection of possible human carcinogens and mutagens.
    Ashby J
    Mutagenesis; 1986 Jan; 1(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 3325732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantitative analysis of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline in F344 gpt delta transgenic rats.
    Gi M; Fujioka M; Totsuka Y; Matsumoto M; Masumura K; Kakehashi A; Yamaguchi T; Fukushima S; Wanibuchi H
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Sep; 34(3):279-287. PubMed ID: 31233596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test.
    Soeteman-Hernández LG; Johnson GE; Slob W
    Mutagenesis; 2016 May; 31(3):347-58. PubMed ID: 26163673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.
    Madia F; Kirkland D; Morita T; White P; Asturiol D; Corvi R
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2020; 854-855():503199. PubMed ID: 32660827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.