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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

1628 related items for PubMed ID: 17293159

  • 1. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.
    Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Tweats D, Aardema M, Corvi R, Darroudi F, Elhajouji A, Glatt H, Hastwell P, Hayashi M, Kasper P, Kirchner S, Lynch A, Marzin D, Maurici D, Meunier JR, Müller L, Nohynek G, Parry J, Parry E, Thybaud V, Tice R, van Benthem J, Vanparys P, White P.
    Mutat Res; 2007 Mar 30; 628(1):31-55. PubMed ID: 17293159
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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 04; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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 30; 588(2):88-105. PubMed ID: 16326131
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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 19; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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 19; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing.
    Parry JM, Parry E, Phrakonkham P, Corvi R.
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Nov 19; 25(6):531-8. PubMed ID: 20720196
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
    Thybaud V, Aardema M, Clements J, Dearfield K, Galloway S, Hayashi M, Jacobson-Kram D, Kirkland D, MacGregor JT, Marzin D, Ohyama W, Schuler M, Suzuki H, Zeiger E, Expert Working Group on Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Relation to In Vitro Testing.
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb 03; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. How to assess the mutagenic potential of cosmetic products without animal tests?
    Speit G.
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug 03; 678(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 19379833
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Reduction of use of animals in regulatory genotoxicity testing: Identification and implementation opportunities-Report from an ECVAM workshop.
    Pfuhler S, Kirkland D, Kasper P, Hayashi M, Vanparys P, Carmichael P, Dertinger S, Eastmond D, Elhajouji A, Krul C, Rothfuss A, Schoening G, Smith A, Speit G, Thomas C, van Benthem J, Corvi R.
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug 03; 680(1-2):31-42. PubMed ID: 19765670
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. I. Choice of cell type.
    Fowler P, Smith K, Young J, Jeffrey L, Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Carmichael P.
    Mutat Res; 2012 Feb 18; 742(1-2):11-25. PubMed ID: 22138618
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.
    Ku WW, Bigger A, Brambilla G, Glatt H, Gocke E, Guzzie PJ, Hakura A, Honma M, Martus HJ, Obach RS, Roberts S, Strategy Expert Group, IWGT.
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb 03; 627(1):59-77. PubMed ID: 17141553
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. GADD45a-GFP GreenScreen HC assay results for the ECVAM recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of new genotoxicity tests.
    Birrell L, Cahill P, Hughes C, Tate M, Walmsley RM.
    Mutat Res; 2010 Jan 03; 695(1-2):87-95. PubMed ID: 20006735
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? II. Construction and analysis of a consolidated database.
    Kirkland D, Zeiger E, Madia F, Corvi R.
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2014 Dec 03; 775-776():69-80. PubMed ID: 25435357
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The comet assay with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database.
    Sasaki YF, Sekihashi K, Izumiyama F, Nishidate E, Saga A, Ishida K, Tsuda S.
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2000 Nov 03; 30(6):629-799. PubMed ID: 11145306
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? I. Reports of individual databases presented at an EURL ECVAM Workshop.
    Kirkland D, Zeiger E, Madia F, Gooderham N, Kasper P, Lynch A, Morita T, Ouedraogo G, Parra Morte JM, Pfuhler S, Rogiers V, Schulz M, Thybaud V, van Benthem J, Vanparys P, Worth A, Corvi R.
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2014 Dec 03; 775-776():55-68. PubMed ID: 25435356
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests.
    Kirkland D, Kasper P, Martus HJ, Müller L, van Benthem J, Madia F, Corvi R.
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2016 Jan 01; 795():7-30. PubMed ID: 26774663
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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 01; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Performance of comet and micronucleus assays in metabolic competent HepaRG cells to predict in vivo genotoxicity.
    Le Hégarat L, Mourot A, Huet S, Vasseur L, Camus S, Chesné C, Fessard V.
    Toxicol Sci; 2014 Apr 01; 138(2):300-9. PubMed ID: 24431211
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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 31; 676(1-2):113-30. PubMed ID: 19393335
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Effects of lowering the proposed top-concentration limit in an in vitro chromosomal aberration test on assay sensitivity and on the reduction of the number of false positives.
    Morita T, Miyajima A, Hatano A, Honma M.
    Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2014 Jul 15; 769():34-49. PubMed ID: 25344110
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 82.