121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7493458)
1. An evaluation of the suitability of benzocaine as a positive control skin sensitizer.
Basketter DA; Scholes EW; Wahlkvist H; Montelius J
Contact Dermatitis; 1995 Jul; 33(1):28-32. PubMed ID: 7493458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens.
Basketter DA; Scholes EW
Food Chem Toxicol; 1992 Jan; 30(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 1544608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximization, Buehler and local lymph node assays.
Basketter DA; Selbie E; Scholes EW; Lees D; Kimber I; Botham PA
Food Chem Toxicol; 1993 Jan; 31(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 8444389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment.
Kimber I; Basketter DA; Berthold K; Butler M; Garrigue JL; Lea L; Newsome C; Roggeband R; Steiling W; Stropp G; Waterman S; Wiemann C
Toxicol Sci; 2001 Feb; 59(2):198-208. PubMed ID: 11158712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT).
Kreiling R; Hollnagel HM; Hareng L; Eigler D; Lee MS; Griem P; Dreessen B; Kleber M; Albrecht A; Garcia C; Wendel A
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Jun; 46(6):1896-904. PubMed ID: 18343554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The local lymph node assay: a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests.
Basketter DA; Gerberick GF; Kimber I; Loveless SE
Food Chem Toxicol; 1996 Oct; 34(10):985-97. PubMed ID: 9012774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessment of the skin sensitization potency of eugenol and its dimers using a non-radioisotopic modification of the local lymph node assay.
Takeyoshi M; Noda S; Yamazaki S; Kakishima H; Yamasaki K; Kimber I
J Appl Toxicol; 2004; 24(1):77-81. PubMed ID: 14745850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of sex differences in guinea-pig maximization test for detection of skin-sensitizing potential using OECD recommended positive control sensitizers.
Nakamura Y; Higaki T; Kato H; Kishida F; Nakatsuka I
J Toxicol Sci; 1998 May; 23(2):105-11. PubMed ID: 9644650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sulphanilic acid: divergent results in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay.
Basketter DA; Scholes EW; Cumberbatch M; Evans CD; Kimber I
Contact Dermatitis; 1992 Oct; 27(4):209-13. PubMed ID: 1451484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Chemical applicability domain of the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) for skin sensitisation potency. Part 3. Apparent discrepancies between LLNA and GPMT sensitisation potential: False positives or differences in sensitivity?
Roberts DW; Schultz TW; Api AM
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Oct; 80():260-7. PubMed ID: 27477089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Unsaturated fatty acids show clear elicitation responses in a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase, and test positive in the direct peptide reactivity assay.
Yamashita K; Shinoda S; Hagiwara S; Miyazaki H; Itagaki H
J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Dec; 40(6):843-53. PubMed ID: 26558466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of contact sensitivity of four thiourea rubber accelerators: comparison of two mouse lymph node assays with the guinea pig maximization test.
Ikarashi Y; Ohno K; Momma J; Tsuchiya T; Nakamura A
Food Chem Toxicol; 1994 Nov; 32(11):1067-72. PubMed ID: 7959462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes.
Gerberick GF; Ryan CA; Kimber I; Dearman RJ; Lea LJ; Basketter DA
Am J Contact Dermat; 2000 Mar; 11(1):3-18. PubMed ID: 10684384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quantitative comparison of the results obtained by the multiple-dose guinea pig maximization test and the non-radioactive murine local lymph-node assay for various biocides.
Yamano T; Shimizu M; Noda T
Toxicology; 2005 Jul; 211(1-2):165-75. PubMed ID: 15863260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Skin sensitisation testing--new perspectives and recommendations.
Steiling W; Basketter D; Berthold K; Butler M; Garrigue JL; Kimber I; Lea L; Newsome C; Roggeband R; Stropp G; Waterman S; Wiemann C
Food Chem Toxicol; 2001 Apr; 39(4):293-301. PubMed ID: 11295477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The local lymph node assay: results of a final inter-laboratory validation under field conditions.
Scholes EW; Basketter DA; Sarll AE; Kimber I; Evans CD; Miller K; Robbins MC; Harrison PT; Waite SJ
J Appl Toxicol; 1992 Jun; 12(3):217-22. PubMed ID: 1629518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The local lymph node assay: current position in the regulatory classification of skin sensitizing chemicals.
Basketter DA; Gerberick GF; Kimber I
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2007; 26(4):293-301. PubMed ID: 18058304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Experimental study for the development of an in vitro test for contact allergens. 2. Comparison of the in vitro sensitization test with the guinea pig maximization test for contact allergens.
Arimura M; Yokozeki H; Katayama I; Nakamura T; Masuda M; Nishioka K
Int Arch Allergy Immunol; 1998 Mar; 115(3):228-34. PubMed ID: 9531165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The murine local lymph node assay: results of an inter-laboratory trial.
Kimber I; Hilton J; Botham PA; Basketter DA; Scholes EW; Miller K; Robbins MC; Harrison PT; Gray TJ; Waite SJ
Toxicol Lett; 1991 Feb; 55(2):203-13. PubMed ID: 1998208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The local lymph node assay in practice: a current regulatory perspective.
Cockshott A; Evans P; Ryan CA; Gerberick GF; Betts CJ; Dearman RJ; Kimber I; Basketter DA
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2006 Jul; 25(7):387-94. PubMed ID: 16898167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
