Top 10 most downloaded articles: July – September 2016

We are delighted to share with you the top 10 most downloaded articles in Toxicology Research from July–September 2016. These papers are free to access for the next two weeks with a free publishing personal account – register here.

Toxicology Research, led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Nigel Gooderham (Imperial College, London), is a multidisciplinary journal covering high impact research in fundamental, translational and applied areas of toxicology. The Journal is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and is the official journal of the British Toxicology Society and the Chinese Society of Toxicology. More details about the journal, the scope and our author guidelines are available on our website.

We hope you enjoy reading these highly accessed articles, and we welcome your future submissions to the Journal.

Statistical evaluation of toxicological bioassays – a review
Ludwig A. Hothorn
Toxicol. Res., 2014, 3, 418-432
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00047A

Characterization of a functional C3A liver spheroid model
Harriet Gaskell, Parveen Sharma, Helen E. Colley, Craig Murdoch, Dominic P. Williams and Steven D.Webb
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 1053-1065
DOI: 10.1039/C6TX00101G

Novel in vitro and mathematical models for the prediction of chemical toxicity
Dominic P. Williams, Rebecca Shipley, Marianne J. Ellis, Steve Webb, John Ward, Iain Gardner and Stuart Creton
Toxicol. Res., 2013, 2, 40-59
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20031G

Acetaminophen-induced S-nitrosylation and S-sulfenylation signalling in 3D cultured hepatocarcinoma cell spheroids
Katarzyna Wojdyla, Krzysztof Wrzesinski, James Williamson, Stephen J. Fey and Adelina Rogowska-Wrzesinska
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 905-920
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00469A

Development and use of in vitro alternatives to animal testing by the pharmaceutical industry 1980–2013
Jen-Yin Goh, Richard J. Weaver, Libby Dixon, Nicola J. Platt and Ruth A. Roberts
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 1297-1307
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00123D

Improving the prediction of organism-level toxicity through integration of chemical, protein target and cytotoxicity qHTS data
Chad H. G. Allen, Alexios Koutsoukas, Isidro Cortés-Ciriano, Daniel S. Murrell, Thérèse E. Malliavin, Robert C. Glen and Andreas Bender
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 883-894
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00406C

A comparative study of cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide, and nanodiamond
Xiaoyong Zhang, Wenbing Hu, Jing Li, Lei Tao and Yen Wei
Toxicol. Res., 2012, 1, 62-68
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20006F

Induction and inhibition of human cytochrome P4501 by oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Emma Wincent, Florane Le Bihanic and Kristian Dreij
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 788-799
DOI: 10.1039/C6TX00004E

In vitro models for liver toxicity testing
Valerie Y. Soldatow, Edward L. LeCluyse, Linda G. Griffith and Ivan Rusyn
Toxicol. Res., 2013, 2, 23-39
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20051A

Effects of monoolein-based cubosome formulations on lipid droplets and mitochondria of HeLa cells
Angela Maria Falchi, Antonella Rosa, Angela Atzeri, Alessandra Incani, Sandrina Lampis, Valeria Meli, Claudia Caltagirone and Sergio Murgia
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 1025-1036
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00078E

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Top 10 Reviewers for Toxicology Research

In celebration of Peer Review Week, with the theme of Recognition for Review – we would like to highlight the top 10 reviewers for Toxicology Research in 2016, as selected by the editorial team for their significant contribution to the journal.

We would like to say a massive thank you to these reviewers as well as the Toxicology Research board and all of the toxicology community for their continued support of the journal, as authors, reviewers and readers.

Name

Institution

Dayong Wang

Southeast University

Hanna Stevens

University of Iowa

Manuel Alvarez-Guerra

Universidad de Cantabria

Wen Chen

Sun Yat-sen University

Sumedha Roy

University of Burdwan

Zhiyong Tang

National Center for Nanoscience and Technology

Xinbiao Guo

Peking University

Samera H Hamad

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dongye Li

Xuzhou Medical College

Y M Zhou

Nanjing Agricultural University

As a little added bonus to celebrate Peer Review Week, for the next four weeks our reviewers will be in with a chance of winning a fantastic prize! Simply submit a review for any of our journals between 19 September and 16 October 2016 and you will be automatically eligible for a chance to win one of our fantastic prizes.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Open Access content in Toxicology Research

We are very pleased to share with you below some of the latest Open Access papers published in Toxicology Research. These research papers and high-impact reviews are free to access for all – we hope you enjoy reading them.

Comment on “Promising blood-derived biomarkers for estimation of the postmortem interval”
I. Costa, F. Carvalho, T. Magalhães, P. G. de Pinho, R. Silvestre & R. J. Dinis-Oliveira
Joris Meurs and Katarzyna M. Szykuła
Toxicol
. Res., 2016, 5, 714-715
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00397K

Improving the prediction of organism-level toxicity through integration of chemical, protein target and cytotoxicity qHTS data
Chad H. G. Allen, Alexios Koutsoukas, Isidro Cortés-Ciriano, Daniel S. Murrell, Thérèse E. Malliavin, Robert C. Glen and Andreas Bender
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 883-894
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00406C

Characterization of a functional C3A liver spheroid model
Harriet Gaskell, Parveen Sharma, Helen E. Colley, Craig Murdoch, Dominic P. Williams and Steven D. Webb
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 1053-1065
DOI: 10.1039/C6TX00101G

Induction and inhibition of human cytochrome P4501 by oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Emma Wincent, Florane Le Bihanic and Kristian Dreij
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 788-799
DOI: 10.1039/C6TX00004E

Acetaminophen-induced S-nitrosylation and S-sulfenylation signalling in 3D cultured hepatocarcinoma cell spheroids
Katarzyna Wojdyla, Krzysztof Wrzesinski, James Williamson, Stephen J. Fey and Adelina Rogowska-Wrzesinska
Toxicol
. Res., 2016, 5, 905-920
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00469A

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Most downloaded articles in Toxicology Research – see what your peers have been reading

We are delighted to share with you the top 10 most downloaded articles in Toxicology Research from 1st April 2016 – 30th June 2016. These papers are free to access for the next two weeks with a free publishing personal account – register here.

Toxicology Research, led by Editor-in-Chief Professor Nigel Gooderham (Imperial College, London), is a multidisciplinary journal covering high impact research in fundamental, translational and applied areas of toxicology. The Journal is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and is the official journal of the British Toxicology Society and the Chinese Society of Toxicology. More details about the journal, the scope and our author guidelines are available on our website.

We hope you enjoy reading these highly accessed articles, and we welcome your future submissions to the Journal.

Statistical evaluation of toxicological bioassays – a review
Ludwig A. Hothorn
Toxicol. Res., 2014,3, 418-432
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00047A

Novel in vitro and mathematical models for the prediction of chemical toxicity
Dominic P. Williams, Rebecca Shipley, Marianne J. Ellis, Steve Webb, John Ward, Iain Gardner and Stuart Creton
Toxicol. Res., 2013,2, 40-59
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20031G

A comparative study of cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide, and nanodiamond
Xiaoyong Zhang, Wenbing Hu, Jing Li, Lei Tao and Yen Wei
Toxicol. Res., 2012,1, 62-68
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20006F

Development and use of in vitro alternatives to animal testing by the pharmaceutical industry 1980–2013
Jen-Yin Goh, Richard J. Weaver, Libby Dixon, Nicola J. Platt and Ruth A. Roberts
Toxicol. Res., 2015,4, 1297-1307
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00123D

Dibutyl phthalate induced oxidative stress does not lead to a significant adjuvant effect on a mouse asthma model
Shaohui Chen, Huihui You, Lin Mao and Xu Yang
Toxicol. Res., 2015,4, 260-269
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00096J

Effects of monoolein-based cubosome formulations on lipid droplets and mitochondria of HeLa cells
Angela Maria Falchi, Antonella Rosa, Angela Atzeri, Alessandra Incani, Sandrina Lampis, Valeria Meli, Claudia Caltagirone and Sergio Murgia
Toxicol. Res., 2015,4, 1025-1036
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00078E

Synergistic interaction between lipid-loading and doxorubicin exposure in Huh7 hepatoma cells results in enhanced cytotoxicity and cellular oxidative stress: implications for acute and chronic care of obese cancer patients
S. AlGhamdi, V. Leoncikas, K. E. Plant and N. J. Plant
Toxicol. Res., 2015,4, 1479-1487
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00173K

In vitro models for neurotoxicology research
Daniel José Barbosa, João Paulo Capela, Maria de Lourdes Bastos and Félix Carvalho
Toxicol. Res., 2015,4, 801-842
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00043A

Health hazards of methylammonium lead iodide based perovskites: cytotoxicity studies
Iness R. Benmessaoud, Anne-Laure Mahul-Mellier, Endre Horváth, Bohumil Maco, Massimo Spina, Hilal A. Lashuel and Làszló Forró
Toxicol. Res., 2016,5, 407-419
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00303B

In vitro models for liver toxicity testing
Valerie Y. Soldatow, Edward L. LeCluyse, Linda G. Griffith and Ivan Rusyn
Toxicol. Res., 2013,2, 23-39
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20051A

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Call for papers: Systems Toxicology

You are invited to contribute to the upcoming Toxicology Research themed issue on Systems Toxicology.

Guest Edited by Professor Ian Wilson (Imperial College London, UK) this upcoming themed issue will cover a wide span of topics, from mathematical in silico models, more descriptive “omics”-based approaches (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabonomics, etc.), to developing a systems view of toxicity.

Systems toxicology, which forms a subdivision of systems biology and was pioneered by Leroy Hood, has many definitions, but as a framework for hypothesis generation and testing may represent an important new way of explaining, modelling and predicting the consequences of the exposure of organisms to toxins. It is clear from even a cursory examination of the literature that systems toxicology has now reached a sufficient state of maturity that a themed issue dedicated to this field is overdue.

For your article to be considered for this themed issue we must receive your manuscript by 3 February 2017.

Communications, Full Papers and Review articles are welcomed. If you are interested in submitting please contact us to let us know.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Nanotoxicology: RSC Toxicology Award Seminar

The RSC Toxicology Award Seminar is due to take place at Burlington House in London on 19th April 2016 between 12pm- 6pm.

The Seminar will celebrate the 2015 Toxicology Award, which will be presented to Professor Vicki Stone (Heriot-Watt University) for pioneering transdisciplinary approaches to assessing the safety of nanomaterials.

Graphical AbstractVicki Stone (BSc PhD FIBiol FRSE) is Director of the Nano Safety Research Group at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, and an Honorary Principal Scientist at the Institute of Occupational Medicine.   She has acted as the Editor-in-chief of the journal Nanotoxicology for 6 years (2006-2011). Vicki has also published over 130 publications pertaining to particle toxicology over the last 16 years and was recently recognised by Thomson Reuters as one of the top 1% of all researchers in the world for the most cited publications in the field of Pharmacology and Toxicology.


Registration is open until 18th April
To book your place click here

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The Collaboration Gene

Written by Professor Ruth Roberts, Director and Cofounder of ApconiX Ltd
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruthroberts42

Success in academic–industry collaboration could be improved by selection of appropriate Collaboration Interface Participants (CIPs) based on inter-individual variability in expression of the putative collaboration gene, clb.

The world of academic – industry collaborations

Collaborations play a vital role in innovation and in the pursuit of new translatable knowledge. These can range from very informal interactions through to the creation of start-up companies with unlimited opportunities for generation of

Figure 1. The Interaction Continuum from informal networking through shared students and postdocs to small business spin offs and start-ups (image by Ruth Roberts).

societal and commercial value (Figure 1). Very early informal interactions play a vital role in providing informal peer review and challenge that can be used both in affirmation of ideas and strategies as well as in ‘unsticking stuckness’ (when problems that can seem insurmountable are easily resolved by a different perspective). Further along the continuum, resources can be pooled to catalyse conceptsa and move pilot projects forward to grant applications and subsequent publication1,2.

As well as studentships, there could be postdoctoral fellows, fee for service contracts and generally ‘bigger things’ at this contractual entry level in the continuum. This step also provides opportunities for cementing relationships via tangible output such as the organisation of scientific sessions and coauthored publications, all of which are positive indicators for further grant funding. Finally, collaborations can lead to commercial opportunities ranging from patents to the creation of startups companies that may ultimately by floated or sold hopefully with significant gain for those who backed the right risk.

The Fourth Dimension of the Industry-Academia Collaboration Continuum

Collaborations are often thought of in 3 dimensions; money, time and geography. From the industry side, the money aspect includes budgetary constraints that must be balanced with perceptions of cost of the collaboration versus perceived value to the sponsoring organisation. From the academic side, scientists are often competing for limited resources within the institution or with external funding bodies. Fortunately for the UK academic environment, studentships are relatively plentiful since cost is shared between the host institute and funding bodies such as the BBSRC3 and the MRC4.

Time is another key element both in terms of the duration of the collaboration but also since trends and priorities ebb and flow with economic cycles. During times of plenty, organisations are much more likely to support projects that pursue knowledge for knowledge’s sake; during harder times funding streams may be only for applied work where the potential for commercial impact is more obvious. For some organisations funding may dry up altogether in leaner times. Geography is also key: despite predictions that the electronic era would overcome geographical barriers, collaboration distances have not increased over time and regional collaboration clearly predominates3.

Although money, time and geography are key parameters in both the initiation of and the success of collaborations, there is a fourth dimension often overlooked: people (Figure 2). The majority of collaborations have been initiated, cemented and progressed when like-minded scientists from different organisations discover a common goal, a shared curiosity or a pet hypothesis to be addressed. Often these scientists may already know one another – an informal survey of a couple of large UK-based companies revealed that a disproportionate number of the MRC and BBSRC studentships were with the industry sponsors’ previous PhD supervisorb. Success at this early stage depends on the willingness of scientists to engage and to take the time and energy to share their thinking informally, to listen carefully to the challenges others are facing and to incorporate this thinking into their own ideas.

Figure 2. The Four Dimensions of the Evaluation of the Evolution of Industry-Academic Collaboration (image by Ruth Roberts).

The Collaboration Phenotype

Most academic and industrial organisations fully recognise that collaboration between academia and industry is key to creating and driving forward innovation in the biosciences, particularly in the search for new medicines. As a consequence of this, most organisations invest significant effort into seeking, organising, maintaining and publicising collaborations. Organisations often have full or part time roles aligned to these tasks, given titles such as industrial liaison manager, head of academic outreach or externalisation director. But in my experiencec and that reported by colleagues, some of the most potentially complex collaborations run smoothly with some institutions whereas even the most simple of studentships can hit numerous inexplicable problems with others. In some organisations, it would seem that collaboration comes naturally and intuitively whereas elsewhere it has to be forced via top-down instruction, perhaps based on targets or process. This appears to be as effective as planning to be spontaneous.

So what can be done to rectify this? As highlighted earlier, people are the key fourth dimension in the likely success of industry-academic collaboration. So, institutions need to think carefully about the selection of the their Collaboration Interface Participants (CIPs) since these are the individuals that can make a success of almost any project and equally well can kill a great idea before it can be explored. CIP phenotype must be considered when selecting individuals for formalised collaboration roles (industrial liaison manager, head of academic outreach, externalisation director, etc) but also in informal interfaces such as meeting potential collaborators and attending networking events such as conferences and discussion groups. Certain informal tests can be applied to shortlist these individuals based on behavioural phenotyped but also on motivation where primary positive indicators could include a genuine enthusiasm and excitement for the topic whereas primary negative indicators could include process (numerical personal and/or institutional targets), competitive behaviours and/or self-promotion. CIPs with the right collaborative phenotype will dramatically enhance success in innovation and delivery. In contrast CIPs with the wrong phenotype will default to process, generating innumerable barriers to innovation and progresse killing any potential collaboration before it really started.

Figure 3. Family tree showing inheritance of clb genotypes. Individuals carrying two copies are natural and compulsive collaborators (image by Ruth Roberts).

So what explains these differences in behaviours? We propose these are driven by differences in expression of the collaboration gene, clb (Figure 3). Homozygous individuals (clb+/+) are driven to collaborate and have a very open and encouraging attitude to new ideas, especially those coming from others. They are willing to run with concepts and take risks. In contrast individuals homozygous for the recessive mutant (clb-/-) appear unable to exhibit collaborative behaviours and are intrinsically suspicious of new ideas especially those proposed by scientists from another organisation. Generally, the clb-/- genotype will seek to solve issues without consultation, exhibiting the so called have-all-the-answers (HATA) phenotype. When placed into a collaboration interface the clb-/- genotype will often create complex processes, structures and metrics in place of judgement and intuition. In contrast, individuals that are hemizygous for the collaboration gene (clb+/-) are highly variable in behaviour and appear to be directly influenced by their environment. In a negative collaboration environment (Table 1) these individuals may behave largely as the clb-/- genotype, resorting to HATA mode especially when challenged. However, when placed in a dynamic, collaboration positive environment or team, collaboration behaviours are switched on creating the induced collaborator (IC) phenotype. These observations provide tentative evidence for environmental regulation of the clb gene, although the mechanisms of such an induction remain to be elucidated.

Table 1. Impact of a negative (-ve) or a positive (+ve) collaborative environment on behaviours in individuals negative, heterozygous or positive for the putative collaboration gene. HATA: have-all-the-answers; IC: induced collaborator; Coll: collaborator (table by Ruth Roberts).

Table 1. Impact of a negative (-ve) or a positive (+ve) collaborative environment on behaviours in individuals negative, heterozygous or positive for the putative collaboration gene. HATA: have-all-the-answers; IC: induced collaborator; Coll: collaborator (table by Ruth Roberts).

Conclusions

Humans’ ability to collaborate to obtain otherwise inaccessible goals may be one main cause for our success as a species6; thus it is not surprising that similar behaviours are central to higher order functions such as success in scientific endeavour. For mutually beneficial collaboration, individuals need cognitive mechanisms to coordinate actions and methods to disseminate benefits in a way that incentivizes partners to continue collaborating6. It is tempting to speculate that the clb gene plays some role in controlling these mechanisms. Additionally, we highlighted earlier that homozygous individuals (clb+/+) have a very open and encouraging attitude to new ideas, and are willing to run with concepts and take risks. Recent data have correlated risk taking behaviour to variations in local brain structure7 suggesting there may be a structural basis for the differences in collaborative behaviour associated with clb genotype. In summary, it’s vital that forward-looking organisations consider CIP phenotypes alongside money, time and geography as a key parameter that will dictate the likely success of their collaborative efforts.

References

1. A. C. Bayly, N. J. French, C. Dive and R. A. Roberts, Non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenesis in vitro: the FaO hepatoma line responds to peroxisome proliferators and retains the ability to undergo apoptosis, J. Cell Sci., 1993, 104, 307-315.

2. A. C. Bayly, R. A. Roberts and C. Dive, Suppression of liver cell apoptosis in vitro by the non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogen and peroxisome proliferator, nafenopin. J. Cell Biol., 1994, 125, 197-203.

3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) 2015. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/studentships/

4. Medical Research Council (MRC) 2015. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/skills-careers/studentships/

5. S. Von Proff and  A. Dettmann, Inventor Collaboration Over Distance: A Comparison of Academic and Corporate Patents, Scientometrics, 2013, 94, 1217-1238.

6. A. P. Melis, The evolutionary roots of human collaboration: coordination and sharing of resources, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 2013, 1299, 68-76.

7. Z. Nasiriavanaki, M. ArianNik, A. Abbassian, E. Mahmoudi, N. Roufigari, S. Shahzadi, M. Nasiriavanaki, B. Bahrami, Prediction of individual differences in risky behaviours in young adults via variations in local brain structure. Front. Neurosci., 2015, 9, 359-345.


a The Catalyst Concept was well illustrated one Friday evening in 1996 when Caroline Dive brought some H33256 (a DNA stain) to my lab on the off-chance that suppression of apoptosis could explain why cultured rat hepatocytes survived indefinitely in the presence of peroxisome proliferators. These data provided the pilot work for a successful BBSRC grant application and subsequent publications that helped move forward the field.

b This can be very productive but a future hypotheses to be tested proposes that exciting and fruitful collaborations are more likely to arise from new relationships and new ideas.

c Chair of the AstraZeneca Global Safety Assessment (GSA) External Collaborations Group (ESG) 2007-2012.

d The poster session test: positive indicators include full participation and engagement; negative indicators include disappearing to ‘catch up with a few emails’.

e Confidentiality agreements, intellectual property rights, legal contracts, key performance indicator (KPI) metrics, etc.

Any views or opinions presented in this post are solely those of the author and may not represent those of The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

BTS Annual Congress 2016

Graphical Abstract


The BTS Annual Congress is due to take place at Manchester Conference Centre, UK between 3rd – 6th April 2016.

Main topics for discussion:

New Frontiers in Predictive Approaches to Safety Assessment
Discovery Toxicology Technology Case Studies
Psychoactive Agents & Drugs of Abuse
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
Safety of Naturals
Joint Symposia with IVTS (Genotoxicity/Carcinogenicity Methods) and BSTP (Cancer Pathology)

Registration is now open!

For more information about the congress and to register your interest, please visit their website: http://www.thebts.org/Meetings/BTSAnnualCongress2016.aspx


Representatives from our Journals Departments will be attending the Symposium. If you wish to set up a meeting please contact the Editorial Office

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Top 10 most accessed articles from October – December 2015

From October – December 2015, our most downloaded Toxicology Research articles were:

Ludwig A. Hothorn
Toxicol. Res., 2014, 3, 418-432
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00047A, Review Article

Novel in vitro and mathematical models for the prediction of chemical toxicity

Dominic P. Williams, Rebecca Shipley, Marianne J. Ellis, Steve Webb, John Ward, Iain Gardner and Stuart Creton
Toxicol. Res., 2013, 2, 40-59
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20031G, Review Article

Daniel José Barbosa, João Paulo Capela, Maria de Lourdes Bastos and Félix Carvalho
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 801-842
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00043A, Review Article

Xiaoyong Zhang, Wenbing Hu, Jing Li, Lei Tao and Yen Wei
Toxicol. Res., 2012, 1, 62-68
DOI: 10.1039/C2TX20006F, Paper

Isabel Costa, Félix Carvalho, Teresa Magalhães, Paula Guedes de Pinho, Ricardo Silvestre and Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 1443-1452
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00209E, Paper

Abdullah Al-Ali, Neenu Singh, Bella Manshian, Tom Wilkinson, John Wills, Gareth J. S. Jenkins and Shareen H. Doak
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 623-633
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00175C, Paper

S. AlGhamdi, V. Leoncikas, K. E. Plant and N. J. Plant
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 1479-1487
DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00173K, Paper

Parodi Daniela A, Sjarif Jasmine, Chen Yichang and Allard Patrick
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 645-654
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00141A, Paper

Henrik Klingberg, Lene B. Oddershede, Katrin Loeschner, Erik H. Larsen, Steffen Loft and Peter Møller
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 655-666
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00061G, Paper

Nick J. Plant
Toxicol. Res., 2015, 4, 9-22
DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00058G, Review Article
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

HOT articles in Toxicology Research

Take a look at our recent HOT Toxicology Research articles, these are now free to access for the next few weeks!

Shanshan Zhu, Xiaolong Xu, Rui Rong, Bing Li and Xue Wang
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 97-106

DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00292C, Paper

Graphical Abstract

Ke-Wei Tian, Hong Jiang, Bei-Bei Wang, Fan Zhang and Shu Han
Toxicol. Res., 2016, 5, 79-96

DOI: 10.1039/C5TX00272A, Paper

Graphical Abstract
Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)