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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3781421)

  • 21. The value and limitations of short-term genotoxicity assays and the inadequacy of current cancer bioassay chemical selection criteria.
    Ashby J
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1986; 209B():111-9. PubMed ID: 3749071
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The value and limitations of short-term genotoxicity assays and the inadequacy of current cancer bioassay chemical selection criteria.
    Ashby J
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1988; 534():133-8. PubMed ID: 3291707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of genotoxic effects of surface waters using a battery of bioassays indicating different mode of action.
    Han Y; Li N; Oda Y; Ma M; Rao K; Wang Z; Jin W; Hong G; Li Z; Luo Y
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2016 Nov; 133():448-56. PubMed ID: 27517142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Data selection and treatment of chemicals tested for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
    Loprieno N; Boncristiani G; Loprieno G; Tesoro M
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Dec; 96():121-6. PubMed ID: 1820253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing.
    Parry JM; Parry E; Phrakonkham P; Corvi R
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov; 25(6):531-8. PubMed ID: 20720196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Application of bacterial reverse mutation assay for detection of non-genotoxic carcinogens.
    Kanode R; Chandra S; Sharma S
    Toxicol Mech Methods; 2017 Jun; 27(5):376-381. PubMed ID: 28325086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. A critical appraisal of the sensitivity of in vivo genotoxicity assays in detecting human carcinogens.
    Zeller A; Pfuhler S; Albertini S; Bringezu F; Czich A; Dietz Y; Fautz R; Hewitt NJ; Kirst A; Kasper P
    Mutagenesis; 2018 Apr; 33(2):179-193. PubMed ID: 29669112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Role of genotoxicity assays in the regulation of chemicals in The Netherlands: considerations and experiences.
    Kramers PG; Knaap AG; van der Heijden CA; Taalman RD; Mohn GR
    Mutagenesis; 1991 Nov; 6(6):487-93. PubMed ID: 1800896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Chemicals classified by IARC: an investigation of some of their toxicological characteristics.
    McGregor DB
    Toxicol Lett; 1992 Dec; 64-65 Spec No():637-42. PubMed ID: 1471218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. International regulatory needs for development of an IATA for non-genotoxic carcinogenic chemical substances.
    Jacobs MN; Colacci A; Louekari K; Luijten M; Hakkert BC; Paparella M; Vasseur P
    ALTEX; 2016; 33(4):359-392. PubMed ID: 27120445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Are genotoxic carcinogens more potent than nongenotoxic carcinogens?
    Parodi S; Malacarne D; Romano P; Taningher M
    Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Nov; 95():199-204. PubMed ID: 1821372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. In Vitro-In Vivo Carcinogenicity.
    Steinberg P
    Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol; 2017; 157():81-96. PubMed ID: 27506831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC working paper No. 5. Genotoxicity tests as predictors of carcinogens: an analysis.
    Douglas GR; Blakey DH; Clayson DB
    Mutat Res; 1988 Jul; 196(1):83-93. PubMed ID: 3292901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Assessment of the potential germ cell mutagenicity of industrial and plant protection chemicals as part of an integrated study of genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo.
    Arni P; Ashby J; Castellino S; Engelhardt G; Herbold BA; Priston RA; Bontinck WJ
    Mutat Res; 1988 Jun; 203(3):177-84. PubMed ID: 3287152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.