Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.
about
Health effects research and regulation of diesel exhaust: an historical overview focused on lung cancer riskThe Salmonella mutagenicity assay: the stethoscope of genetic toxicology for the 21st century.Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.Recent Perspectives on the Relations between Fecal Mutagenicity, Genotoxicity, and DietComparative evaluation of 11 in silico models for the prediction of small molecule mutagenicity: role of steric hindrance and electron-withdrawing groups.Acute and Subchronic Toxic Effects of the Fruits of Physalis peruviana L.How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?Latest advances in computational genotoxicity prediction.Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement of Animal Toxicity Tests by Computational Methods.An investigation of the mutagenic activity of salamide - a major impurity of hydrochlorothiazide.Bacterial mutagenicity assays: Vehicle and positive control results from the standard Ames assay, the 6- and 24-well miniaturized plate incorporation assays and the Ames II™ assay.International round-robin study on the Ames fluctuation test.Selenazolinium Salts as "Small Molecule Catalysts" with High Potency against ESKAPE Bacterial Pathogens.The micro-Ames test: A direct comparison of the performance and sensitivities of the standard and 24-well plate versions of the bacterial mutation test.In Vitro Genotoxicity Testing: Significance and Use in Environmental Monitoring.Toxicologic characterization of a novel explosive, guanidinium 3,4-dinitropyrazolate (GDNP), in female rats and Ames mutagenicity assay.Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of ames genotoxicity: a retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation.Hierarchical Rules for Read-Across and In Silico Models of Mutagenicity.Mutagenicity and Acute Oral Toxicity Test for Herbal Poultry Feed Supplements.
P2860
Q28387705-0378EB69-B662-4292-811B-C15F25A11FF8Q34282785-E7090BC9-7E18-4E9C-9610-F14973D373C6Q34638248-B12FE449-C52F-4963-BAD4-06BC754EFD71Q35094723-73F7E82A-1909-49E2-AB1D-040FC7CB11EDQ36182676-70B522E4-BCFC-4293-B093-12073B154079Q37393173-D7B85F18-30F7-4A8E-9CA2-21B6BF58AC36Q37811040-DBF84402-511B-4AC3-8F4B-CB09996BE134Q38045383-D4007B07-AFA5-48B6-8A5D-A7B3EC542FD0Q39067502-B6912C14-3647-4C77-91DE-3C4ADC8EA11EQ39239980-4F03FB3A-88F0-4F9A-872F-E076196D9A12Q39751629-A5CDE064-AEE5-4EAE-84ED-71430C2CEF43Q45218248-54AC9764-7AE1-4D19-B77B-F182B7C93E23Q47239447-E2556F17-9FCD-4CC7-A211-94051872F017Q48215759-7BF0D8C3-460D-4718-B7B5-D9BD358D0A52Q49961867-4626A1C6-7847-49D1-A380-42D19DFA13B0Q50025198-D3C90D8E-5337-4C6C-801B-00F6324E014AQ50425075-D59DB7BD-3DAE-410E-808E-91E75996E224Q50849641-9C7D206C-450F-4ACE-8061-CF411FCF050BQ54942402-0081352F-15BD-4AF8-B0B3-3FCD6D2783BB
P2860
Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.
description
2009 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2009年の論文
@ja
2009年学术文章
@wuu
2009年学术文章
@zh
2009年学术文章
@zh-cn
2009年学术文章
@zh-hans
2009年学术文章
@zh-my
2009年学术文章
@zh-sg
2009年學術文章
@yue
2009年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@en
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@nl
type
label
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@en
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@nl
prefLabel
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@en
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@nl
P2093
P2860
P356
P1433
P1476
Comparison of the Ames II and ...... n with rodent carcinogenicity.
@en
P2093
Errol Zeiger
Günter Engelhardt
Markus Kamber
Rudolf Jaeckh
Sini Flückiger-Isler
P2860
P304
P356
10.1093/MUTAGE/GEP017
P577
2009-05-15T00:00:00Z