251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16414170)
21. Prediction of the rodent carcinogenicity of 60 pesticides by the DEREKfW expert system.
Crettaz P; Benigni R
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1864-73. PubMed ID: 16309294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Development of QSAR models for predicting hepatocarcinogenic toxicity of chemicals.
Massarelli I; Imbriani M; Coi A; Saraceno M; Carli N; Bianucci AM
Eur J Med Chem; 2009 Sep; 44(9):3658-64. PubMed ID: 19272677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals. II. Using oral slope factor as a measure of carcinogenic potency.
Wang NC; Venkatapathy R; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Mar; 59(2):215-26. PubMed ID: 20951756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Carcinogenicity of the aromatic amines: from structure-activity relationships to mechanisms of action and risk assessment.
Benigni R; Passerini L
Mutat Res; 2002 Jul; 511(3):191-206. PubMed ID: 12088717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Mechanistic QSAR of aromatic amines: new models for discriminating between homocyclic mutagens and nonmutagens, and validation of models for carcinogens.
Benigni R; Bossa C; Netzeva T; Rodomonte A; Tsakovska I
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2007 Dec; 48(9):754-71. PubMed ID: 18008355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparative analysis of predictive models for nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogenicity using both toxicogenomics and quantitative structure-activity relationships.
Liu Z; Kelly R; Fang H; Ding D; Tong W
Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jul; 24(7):1062-70. PubMed ID: 21627106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. In silico quantitative structure-toxicity relationship study of aromatic nitro compounds.
Pasha FA; Neaz MM; Cho SJ; Ansari M; Mishra SK; Tiwari S
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2009 May; 73(5):537-44. PubMed ID: 19323655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Structure-activity relationship analysis tools: validation and applicability in predicting carcinogens.
Mayer J; Cheeseman MA; Twaroski ML
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Feb; 50(1):50-8. PubMed ID: 18023949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparative QSTR studies for predicting mutagenicity of nitro compounds.
Nair PC; Sobhia ME
J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Feb; 26(6):916-34. PubMed ID: 17689994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 16352383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. QSARs of aromatic amines: identification of potent carcinogens.
Franke R; Gruska A; Bossa C; Benigni R
Mutat Res; 2010 Sep; 691(1-2):27-40. PubMed ID: 20600167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Liver specificity of the carcinogenicity of NOCs: a chemical-molecular perspective.
Yuan J; Pu Y; Yin L
Chem Res Toxicol; 2012 Nov; 25(11):2432-42. PubMed ID: 23043541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison between rodent carcinogenicity test results of 44 chemicals and a number of predictive systems.
Lewis DF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1994 Dec; 20(3 Pt 1):215-22. PubMed ID: 7724831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure-activity relationships model.
Franke R; Gruska A; Giuliani A; Benigni R
Carcinogenesis; 2001 Sep; 22(9):1561-71. PubMed ID: 11532881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. SMILES-based optimal descriptors: QSAR modeling of carcinogenicity by balance of correlations with ideal slopes.
Toropov AA; Toropova AP; Benfenati E
Eur J Med Chem; 2010 Sep; 45(9):3581-7. PubMed ID: 20570021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. In Silico Methods for Carcinogenicity Assessment.
Golbamaki A; Benfenati E
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():107-19. PubMed ID: 27311464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Computer-aided analysis of mutagenicity and cell transformation data for assessing their relationship with carcinogenicity.
Taningher M; Malacarne D; Perrotta A; Parodi S
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1999; 33(3):226-39. PubMed ID: 10334625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Structural motifs modulating the carcinogenic risk of aromatic amines.
Benigni R; Worth A; Netzeva T; Jeliazkova N; Bossa C; Gruska A; Franke R
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2009 Mar; 50(2):152-61. PubMed ID: 19152383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Predictivity of QSAR.
Benigni R; Bossa C
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):971-80. PubMed ID: 18426198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Radial Distribution Function descriptors for predicting affinity for vitamin D receptor.
González MP; Gándara Z; Fall Y; Gómez G
Eur J Med Chem; 2008 Jul; 43(7):1360-5. PubMed ID: 18068275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
