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 *

296 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7344514)

  • 41. Comparison of in vivo genotoxic and carcinogenic potency to augment mode of action analysis: Case study with hexavalent chromium.
    Thompson CM; Bichteler A; Rager JE; Suh M; Proctor DM; Haws LC; Harris MA
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2016 Apr; 800-801():28-34. PubMed ID: 27085472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.
    Kirman CR; Sweeney LM; Teta MJ; Sielken RL; Valdez-Flores C; Albertini RJ; Gargas ML
    Risk Anal; 2004 Oct; 24(5):1165-83. PubMed ID: 15563286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Interaction of chemical carcinogens with macromolecules.
    O'Connor PJ
    J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 1981; 99(1-2):167-86. PubMed ID: 7251633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. A strategy for establishing mode of action of chemical carcinogens as a guide for approaches to risk assessments.
    Butterworth BE; Conolly RB; Morgan KT
    Cancer Lett; 1995 Jun; 93(1):129-46. PubMed ID: 7600540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Prediction of carcinogenic potency by short-term genotoxicity tests.
    Ennever FK; Rosenkranz HS
    Mutagenesis; 1987 Jan; 2(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 3331693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Cyproterone acetate: a genotoxic carcinogen?
    Kasper P
    Pharmacol Toxicol; 2001 May; 88(5):223-31. PubMed ID: 11393581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [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]  

  • 50. Chemical structure determines target organ carcinogenesis in rats.
    Carrasquer CA; Malik N; States G; Qamar S; Cunningham SL; Cunningham AR
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2012 Oct; 23(7-8):775-95. PubMed ID: 23066888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A comprehensive approach for integration of toxicity and cancer risk assessments.
    Butterworth BE; Bogdanffy MS
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1999 Feb; 29(1):23-36. PubMed ID: 10051416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Human carcinogenic risk evaluation, part II: contributions of the EUROTOX specialty section for carcinogenesis.
    Bolt HM; Degen GH
    Toxicol Sci; 2004 Sep; 81(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 15159528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Failure of the standard battery of short-term tests in detecting some rodent and human genotoxic carcinogens.
    Brambilla G; Martelli A
    Toxicology; 2004 Mar; 196(1-2):1-19. PubMed ID: 15036752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Interspecies comparisons of tissue DNA damage, repair, fixation, and replication.
    Slaga TJ
    Environ Health Perspect; 1988 Apr; 77():73-82. PubMed ID: 3289910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Cell specificity in DNA binding and repair of chemical carcinogens.
    Swenberg JA; Rickert DE; Baranyi BL; Goodman JI
    Environ Health Perspect; 1983 Mar; 49():155-63. PubMed ID: 6832089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Potency of carcinogens derived from covalent DNA binding and stimulation of DNA synthesis in rat liver.
    Lutz WK; Büsser MT; Sagelsdorff P
    Toxicol Pathol; 1984; 12(1):106-11. PubMed ID: 6494730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Chemical carcinogens and overnutrition in diet-related cancer.
    Lutz WK; Schlatter J
    Carcinogenesis; 1992 Dec; 13(12):2211-6. PubMed ID: 1473226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Short-term tests in the framework of carcinogen risk assessment to man.
    Kroes R
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1983; 407():398-408. PubMed ID: 6576683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Role of tissue exposure and DNA lesions for organ-specific effects of carcinogenic trans-4-acetylaminostilbene in rats.
    Neumann HG
    Environ Health Perspect; 1983 Mar; 49():51-8. PubMed ID: 6832097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Investigating the different mechanisms of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens by a gene set analysis.
    Lee WJ; Kim SC; Lee SJ; Lee J; Park JH; Yu KS; Lim J; Kwon SW
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e86700. PubMed ID: 24497971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.