SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, Serrrano JA, Tietge JE, Villeneuve DL. 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29: 730741.
  • Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D, Farland W. 2006. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36: 781792.
  • Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek ME, Munn S, Ruchirawat M, Schlatter J, Seed J, Vickers C. 2008. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 38: 8796.
  • Boobis AR, Daston GF, Preston RJ, Olin SS. 2009. Application of key events analysis to chemical carcinogens and noncarcinogens. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 49: 690707.
  • Cao Z, Shafer TJ, Crofton KM, Gennings C, Murray TF. 2011a. Additivity of pyrethroid actions on sodium influx in cerebrocortical neurons in primary culture. Environ. Health Perspect. 119: 12391246.
  • Cao Z, Shafer, TJ, Murray TF. 2011b. Mechanisms of pyrethroid insecticide-induced stimulation of calcium influx in neocortical neurons. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 336: 197205.
  • Carmichael N, Bausen M, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Embry M, Fruijtier-Pölloth C, Greim H, Lewis R, Meek ME, Mellor H, Vickers C, Doe J. 2011. Using mode of action information to improve regulatory decision-making: an ECETOC/ILSI RF/HESI workshop overview. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 41: 175186.
  • Clark JM, Symington SB. 2012. Advances in the mode of action of pyrethroids. Top. Curr. Chem. 314: 4972.
  • Cohen SM, Boobis AR, Meek ME, Preston RJ, McGregor D. 2006a. 4-Aminobiphenyl and DNA reactivity: case study within the context of the 2006 IPCS human relevance framework for analysis of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36: 803819.
  • Cohen SM, Arnold LL, Eldan M, Lewis AS, Beck BD. 2006b. Methylated arsenicals: the implications of metabolism and carcinogenicity studies in rodents to human risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36: 99133.
  • Cohen SM, Ohnishi T, Arnold LL, Le SC. 2007. Arsenic-induced bladder cancer in an animal model. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 222: 258263.
  • Council of Labor Affairs, Taiwan. 2012. Existing Chemical Substance Inventory. Chemical Substance Nomination & Notification, Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. Available at: http://csnn.cla.gov.tw/content/englishHome.aspx (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • Dellarco VL, McGregor D, Berry SC, Cohen SM, Boobis AR. 2006. Thiazopyr and thyroid disruption: case study within the context of the 2006 IPCS human relevance framework for analysis of a cancer mode of action. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36: 793801.
  • Dellarco V, Henry T, Sayre P, Seed J, Bradbury S. 2010. Meeting the common needs of a more effective and efficient testing and assessment paradigm for chemical risk management. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 13(2–4): 347360.
  • European Chemicals Bureau. 2004. European Union Risk Assessment Report: Aniline. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available at: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/risk_assessment/REPORT/anilinereport049.pdf (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • European Commission. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC,93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union L396, 1–849. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • Gocht T, Schwarz M, Berggren E, Whelan M. 2013. SEURAT-1: Development of a Research Strategy for the Replacement of In Vivo Repeated Dose Systemic Toxicity Testing. Available at: http://www.alttox.org/ttrc/eu/way-forward/gocht-schwarz-berggren-whelan/#1 (accessed 13 September 2013).
  • Hill AB. 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58: 295300.
  • Hou T, Li Y, Zhang W, Wang J. 2009. Recent developments of in silico predictions of intestinal absorption and oral bioavailability. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 12: 497506.
  • Hughes K, Paterson J, Meek ME. 2009. Tools for the prioritization of substances on the Domestic Substances List in Canada on the basis of hazard. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 55: 382393.
  • Julien E, Boobis AR, Olin SS, The ILSI Research Foundation Threshold Working Group. 2009. The key events dose–response framework: a cross-disciplinary mode-of-action based approach to examining dose–response and thresholds. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 49: 682689.
  • Knaak JB, Dary CC, Zhang X, Gerlach RW, Tornero-Velez R, Chang DT, Goldsmith R, Blancato JN. 2012. Parameters for pyrethroid insecticide QSAR and PBPK/PD models for human risk assessment. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 219: 1114.
  • Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. 2012. Chemicals Policy: Other Nations [Internet]. Chemicals Policy & Science Initiative, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts. Available at: http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/chemicalspolicy.othernations.php (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • McConnell ER, McClain MA, Ross J, Lefew WR, Shafer TJ. 2012. Evaluation of multi-well microelectrode arrays for neurotoxicity screening using a chemical training set. Neurotoxicology 33: 10481057.
  • McGregor D, Bolt H, Cogliano V, Richter-Reichhelm HB. 2006. Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde and nasal cytotoxicity: case study within the context of the 2006 IPCS human framework for the analysis of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36: 821835.
  • Meek ME. 2008. Recent developments in frameworks to consider human relevance of hypothesized modes of action for tumours in animals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 49: 110116.
  • Meek ME. 2009. Mode of Action Frameworks in Toxicity Testing and Chemical Risk Assessment. PhD dissertation, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
  • Meek ME, Armstrong VC. 2007. The assessment and management of industrial chemicals in Canada. In Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction, Van Leeuwen K, Vermeire T (eds). 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, the Netherlands; 591621.
  • Meek ME, Klaunig JE. 2010. Proposed mode of action of benzene-induced leukemia: interpreting available data and identifying critical data gaps for risk assessment. Chem. Biol. Interact. 184: 279285.
  • Meek ME, Bucher JR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, Hill RN, Lehman-McKeeman LD, Longfellow DG, Pastoor T, Seed J, Patton DE. 2003. A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33: 591653.
  • Meek ME, Berry C, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Hartley M, Munn S, Olin S, Schlatter V, Vickers C. 2008. Letter to the editor re: Guyton, Kathryn Z, Barone, Stanley, Jr, Brown, Rebecca C, Euling, Susan Y, Jinot, Jennifer, Makris, Susan (2008). Mode of action frameworks: a critical analysis. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B 11: 681685.
  • Meek ME, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Raaij MV, Vickers C. 2011. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 60(2): S1S14.
  • Meek ME, Palermo CM, Bachman AM, North CM, Lewis RJ. n.d. Submitted. Mode of action human relevance (MOA/HR) framework – Evolution of the modified Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. Appl. Toxicol.
  • [NRC] National Research Council. 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
  • [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009. Report of the Expert Consultation to Evaluate an Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity Model for Hazard Identification. Environment Directorate, OECD, Paris. Available at: http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2009)33&doclanguage = en (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2012. Proposal for a Template, and Guidance on Developing and Assessing the Completeness of Adverse Outcome Pathways. OECD, Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testingofchemicals/49963554.pdf (accessed 28 September 2012).
  • Schmieder P, Mekenyan O, Bradbury S, Veith G. 2003. QSAR prioritization of chemical inventories for endocrine disruptor testing. Pure Appl. Chem. 75: 23892396.
  • Schmieder PK, Tapper MA, Denny JS, Kolanczyk RC, Sheedy BR, Henry TR, Veith GD. 2004. Use of trout liver slices to enhance mechanistic interpretation of estrogen receptor binding for cost-effective prioritization of chemicals within large inventories. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(23): 63336342.
  • Scollon EJ, Starr JM, Godin SJ, DeVito MJ, Hughes MF. 2009. In vitro metabolism of pyrethroid pesticides by rat and human hepatic microsomes and cytochrome p450 isoforms. Drug Metab. Dispos. 37: 221228.
  • Seed J, Carney EW, Corley RA, Crofton KM, DeSesso JM, Foster PM, Kavlock R, Kimmel G, Klaunig J, Meek ME, Preston RJ, Slikker W, Jr, Tabacova S, Williams GM, Wiltse J, Zoeller RT, Fenner-Crisp P, Patton DE. 2005. Overview: Using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 35: 664672.
  • Soderlund DM. 2012. Molecular mechanisms of pyrethroid insecticide neurotoxicity: recent advances. Arch. Toxicol. 86: 165181.
  • Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Wiltse J, Baetcke K, Dempsey J, Fenner-Crisp P, Grant D, Hartley M, Knaap A, Kroese D, Mangelsdorf I, Meek E, Rice JM, Younes M, International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2001. IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34: 146152.
  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed. Reg. 61: 1796018011.
  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. US EPA, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines/
  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. Science Issue Paper: Mode of Carcinogenic Action for Cacodylic Acid (Dimethylarsinic Acid, DMAV) and Recommendations for Dose Response Extrapolation. Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, DC.
  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. An Effects-based Expert System to Predict Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity for Food Use Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides: Application in a Prioritization Scheme for Endocrine Disrupting Screening [Draft]. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D = EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322-0002 (accessed 28 September 2009).
  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/139F. US EPA, Washington, DC, pp. 5-15-23.