Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 92

1.

Theoretical considerations for thresholds in chemical carcinogenesis.

Thomas AD, Fahrer J, Johnson GE, Kaina B.

Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2015 Jul-Sep;765:56-67. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2015.05.001. Epub 2015 May 27. Review.

PMID:
26281768
2.

Hormesis and dose-response-mediated mechanisms in carcinogenesis: evidence for a threshold in carcinogenicity of non-genotoxic carcinogens.

Fukushima S, Kinoshita A, Puatanachokchai R, Kushida M, Wanibuchi H, Morimura K.

Carcinogenesis. 2005 Nov;26(11):1835-45. Epub 2005 Jun 23. Review.

PMID:
15975961
3.

Low doses and thresholds in genotoxicity: from theories to experiments.

Zito R.

J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Sep;20(3):315-25. Review.

PMID:
11718209
4.

Challenging dogma: thresholds for genotoxic carcinogens? The case of vinyl acetate.

Hengstler JG, Bogdanffy MS, Bolt HM, Oesch F.

Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2003;43:485-520. Epub 2002 Jan 10. Review.

PMID:
12415124
5.

Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Klapacz J, Pottenger LH, Engelward BP, Heinen CD, Johnson GE, Clewell RA, Carmichael PL, Adeleye Y, Andersen ME.

Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2016 Jan-Mar;767:77-91. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2015.11.001. Epub 2015 Dec 2. Review.

8.

Genotoxic thresholds, DNA repair, and susceptibility in human populations.

Jenkins GJ, Zaïr Z, Johnson GE, Doak SH.

Toxicology. 2010 Dec 30;278(3):305-10. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.11.016. Epub 2009 Nov 22. Review.

PMID:
19932733
9.

DNA damage and repair in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis: implications of structure-activity relationships for cross-species extrapolation.

Vogel EW, Nivard MJ, Ballering LA, Bartsch H, Barbin A, Nair J, Comendador MA, Sierra LM, Aguirrezabalaga I, Tosal L, Ehrenberg L, Fuchs RP, Janel-Bintz R, Maenhaut-Michel G, Montesano R, Hall J, Kang H, Miele M, Thomale J, Bender K, Engelbergs J, Rajewsky MF.

Mutat Res. 1996 Jun 12;353(1-2):177-218. Review.

PMID:
8692191
10.
11.

Arsenic, mode of action at biologically plausible low doses: what are the implications for low dose cancer risk?

Snow ET, Sykora P, Durham TR, Klein CB.

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Sep 1;207(2 Suppl):557-64. Review.

PMID:
15996700
12.

Evaluation of nonthreshold leukemogenic response to methyl nitrosourea in p53-deficient C3H/He mice.

Hirabayashi Y, Yoshida K, Aizawa S, Kodama Y, Kanno J, Kurokawa Y, Yoshimura I, Inoue T.

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003 Aug 1;190(3):251-61.

PMID:
12902196
13.

[Theory and practice of primary cancer prevention].

Tompa A.

Magy Onkol. 2007;51(1):7-21. Epub 2007 Apr 8. Review. Hungarian.

14.

Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.

Preston RJ.

Chem Biol Interact. 2007 Mar 20;166(1-3):150-5. Epub 2006 Apr 5.

PMID:
16647696
15.

Approaches for characterizing threshold dose-response relationships for DNA-damage pathways involved in carcinogenicity in vivo and micronuclei formation in vitro.

Clewell RA, Andersen ME.

Mutagenesis. 2016 May;31(3):333-40. doi: 10.1093/mutage/gev078. Epub 2016 Feb 4. Review.

PMID:
26846943
16.

[Role of DNA repair in chemical carcinogenesis].

Likhachev AIa.

Vopr Onkol. 1987;33(1):3-11. Review. Russian. No abstract available.

PMID:
3544490
18.

[Prevention of cancer and the dose-effect relationship: the carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiations].

Tubiana M.

Cancer Radiother. 2009 Jul;13(4):238-58. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2009.03.003. Epub 2009 Jun 17. Review. French.

PMID:
19539515
19.

Threshold dose response for tumor induction by genotoxic carcinogens modeled via cell-cycle delay.

Lutz WK, Kopp-Schneider A.

Toxicol Sci. 1999 May;49(1):110-5.

PMID:
10367348
20.

Formation, detection, and role in carcinogenesis of ethenobases in DNA.

Bartsch H, Barbin A, Marion MJ, Nair J, Guichard Y.

Drug Metab Rev. 1994;26(1-2):349-71. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
8082574

Supplemental Content

Support Center