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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4087307)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Chemical structure of mutagens and carcinogens and the relationship with biological activity.
    Benigni R
    J Exp Clin Cancer Res; 2004 Mar; 23(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 15149144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods.
    Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 16352383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Statistical exploration of four major genotoxicity data bases: an overview.
    Benigni R; Giuliani A
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 1988; 12(1):75-83. PubMed ID: 3383841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. FIFRA Subdivision F testing Guidelines: are these tests adequate to detect potential hormonal activity for crop protection chemicals? Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
    Stevens JT; Tobia A; Lamb JC; Tellone C; O'Neal F
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1997 Apr; 50(5):415-31. PubMed ID: 9140462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.