170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20198980)
1. [Efficiency of evaluating the carcinogenicity of chemical substances in short-term tests and the SAR model].
Tarasov VA; Tsarenko NA; Mel'nik VA; Mustafaev ON; Makedonov GP; Tarasov AV
Genetika; 2009 Dec; 45(12):1674-84. PubMed ID: 20198980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Prospects for using the SOS-Chromotest for predicting carcinogenic activity of chemical compounds].
Koreshkova SV; Tanirbergenov TB; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 1995 Jun; 31(6):861-4. PubMed ID: 7635324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.
Vogel EW; Graf U; Frei HJ; Nivard MM
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):427-70. PubMed ID: 10353398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Efficiency of the prediction of carcinogenic activities of chemical substances based on scoring somatic mutations in the soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill].
Bittueva MM; Abilev SK; Tarasov VA
Genetika; 2007 Jan; 43(1):78-87. PubMed ID: 17333942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Structure-activity models of chemical carcinogens: state of the art, and new directions.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2006; 42(2):118-26. PubMed ID: 17033131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. SOS chromotest results in a broader context: empirical relationships between genotoxic potency, mutagenic potency, and carcinogenic potency.
White PA; Rasmussen JB
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 27(4):270-305. PubMed ID: 8665872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling.
Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Chanderbhan RF; Contrera JF
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2007 Jul; 222(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 17482223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Building an organ-specific carcinogenic database for SAR analyses.
Young J; Tong W; Fang H; Xie Q; Pearce B; Hashemi R; Beger R; Cheeseman M; Chen J; Chang YC; Kodell R
J Toxicol Environ Health A; 2004 Sep; 67(17):1363-89. PubMed ID: 15371237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 5,5-Diphenylhydantoin (CAS No. 57-41-0) (Phenytoin) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Feed Studies).
National Toxicology Program
Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser; 1993 Nov; 404():1-303. PubMed ID: 12621514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Short-term tests for defining mutagenic carcinogens.
Waters MD; Stack HF; Jackson MA
IARC Sci Publ; 1999; (146):499-536. PubMed ID: 10353401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. CISOC-PSCT: a predictive system for carcinogenic toxicity.
Liao Q; Yao JH; Li F; Yuan SG; Doucet JP; Panaye A; Fan BT
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004 Jun; 15(3):217-35. PubMed ID: 15293548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Mutat Res; 2008; 659(3):248-61. PubMed ID: 18621573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A topological substructural approach applied to the computational prediction of rodent carcinogenicity.
Helguera AM; Cabrera Pérez MA; González MP; Ruiz RM; González Díaz H
Bioorg Med Chem; 2005 Apr; 13(7):2477-88. PubMed ID: 15755650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software.
Matthews EJ; Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1998 Dec; 28(3):242-64. PubMed ID: 10049796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
