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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7678166)

  • 1. Precedents or possibilities: which should guide the harmonization of mutagenicity test protocols and carcinogen prediction strategies?
    Ashby J
    Mutat Res; 1993 Feb; 298(4):291-5. PubMed ID: 7678166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Strategies and testing methods for identifying mutagenic risks.
    MacGregor JT; Casciano D; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2000 Nov; 455(1-2):3-20. PubMed ID: 11113464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An industrial and UK perspective on short-term testing.
    Gatehouse DG
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():249-59. PubMed ID: 2371298
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Current status of the Gene-Tox Program.
    Auletta AE; Kier LD; Mitchell AD
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():273-81. PubMed ID: 2371300
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comment on the US EPA recommendation for genotoxicity guidelines on chemicals.
    Ishidate M
    Mutat Res; 1992 Aug; 272(1):79-80. PubMed ID: 1380121
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Epidemiology of occupational carcinogens and mutagens.
    Ruder AM
    Occup Med; 1996; 11(3):487-512. PubMed ID: 8887381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Problem of the harmonization of philosophies for genotoxicity testing.
    Madle S
    Mutat Res; 1993 Jul; 300(2):73-6. PubMed ID: 7685495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validation of the SOS/umu test using test results of 486 chemicals and comparison with the Ames test and carcinogenicity data.
    Reifferscheid G; Heil J
    Mutat Res; 1996 Aug; 369(3-4):129-45. PubMed ID: 8792833
    [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 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]  

  • 10. Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation.
    Combes R; Grindon C; Cronin MT; Roberts DW; Garrod J
    Altern Lab Anim; 2007 May; 35(2):267-87. PubMed ID: 17559315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Refinement of long-term toxicity and carcinogenesis studies.
    Roe FJ
    Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1991 Apr; 16(3):616-8. PubMed ID: 1855628
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Estimation of genetic safety of nanomaterials].
    Sycheva LP; Zhurkov VS
    Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk; 2011; (9):72-6. PubMed ID: 22145377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines.
    Sistare FD; Morton D; Alden C; Christensen J; Keller D; Jonghe SD; Storer RD; Reddy MV; Kraynak A; Trela B; Bienvenu JG; Bjurström S; Bosmans V; Brewster D; Colman K; Dominick M; Evans J; Hailey JR; Kinter L; Liu M; Mahrt C; Marien D; Myer J; Perry R; Potenta D; Roth A; Sherratt P; Singer T; Slim R; Soper K; Fransson-Steen R; Stoltz J; Turner O; Turnquist S; van Heerden M; Woicke J; DeGeorge JJ
    Toxicol Pathol; 2011 Jun; 39(4):716-44. PubMed ID: 21666103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification.
    Luijten M; Olthof ED; Hakkert BC; Rorije E; van der Laan JW; Woutersen RA; van Benthem J
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2016 Aug; 46(7):615-39. PubMed ID: 27142259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Chemical carcinogenicity: can it be predicted from knowledge of mutagenicity and allergic contact dermatitis?
    Rosenkranz HS; Karol MH
    Mutat Res; 1999 Dec; 431(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 10656488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Structure-based methods for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity: are we there yet?
    Richard AM
    Mutat Res; 1998 May; 400(1-2):493-507. PubMed ID: 9685707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A guide for mutagenicity testing using the dominant lethal assay.
    Green S; Lavappa KS; Manandhar M; Sheu CJ; Whorton E; Springer JA
    Mutat Res; 1987 Oct; 189(2):167-74. PubMed ID: 3657832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Series: 'Current issues in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis.' No. 42. Strategies and philosophies of genotoxicity testing: what is the question?
    Zeiger E
    Mutat Res; 1994 Jan; 304(2):309-14. PubMed ID: 7506375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 4.3 In-vitro genotoxicity tests to detect carcinogenicity: a systematic review.
    Müller L
    Hum Exp Toxicol; 2009 Feb; 28(2-3):131-3. PubMed ID: 19713378
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.