485 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21627106)
61. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. In vitro perturbations of targets in cancer hallmark processes predict rodent chemical carcinogenesis.
Kleinstreuer NC; Dix DJ; Houck KA; Kavlock RJ; Knudsen TB; Martin MT; Paul KB; Reif DM; Crofton KM; Hamilton K; Hunter R; Shah I; Judson RS
Toxicol Sci; 2013 Jan; 131(1):40-55. PubMed ID: 23024176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. An improved model of predicting hepatocarcinogenic potential in rats by using gene expression data.
Yamada F; Sumida K; Saito K
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Feb; 36(2):296-308. PubMed ID: 26198598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Literature-based compound profiling: application to toxicogenomics.
Frijters R; Verhoeven S; Alkema W; van Schaik R; Polman J
Pharmacogenomics; 2007 Nov; 8(11):1521-34. PubMed ID: 18034617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. In vivo murine hepatic microRNA and mRNA expression signatures predicting the (non-)genotoxic carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
Melis JP; Derks KW; Pronk TE; Wackers P; Schaap MM; Zwart E; van Ijcken WF; Jonker MJ; Breit TM; Pothof J; van Steeg H; Luijten M
Arch Toxicol; 2014 Apr; 88(4):1023-34. PubMed ID: 24390151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Combined Use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows Software to Achieve High-Performance, High-Confidence, Mode of Action-Based Predictions of Chemical Carcinogenesis in Rodents.
Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Benz RD; Contrera JF; Marchant CA; Yang C
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2008; 18(2-3):189-206. PubMed ID: 20020914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. CARCINOscreen®: New short-term prediction method for hepatocarcinogenicity of chemicals based on hepatic transcript profiling in rats.
Matsumoto H; Saito F; Takeyoshi M
J Toxicol Sci; 2014; 39(5):725-34. PubMed ID: 25242402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. 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]
69. Assessing compound carcinogenicity in vitro using connectivity mapping.
Caiment F; Tsamou M; Jennen D; Kleinjans J
Carcinogenesis; 2014 Jan; 35(1):201-7. PubMed ID: 23940306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Predicting drug-induced hepatotoxicity using QSAR and toxicogenomics approaches.
Low Y; Uehara T; Minowa Y; Yamada H; Ohno Y; Urushidani T; Sedykh A; Muratov E; Kuz'min V; Fourches D; Zhu H; Rusyn I; Tropsha A
Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Aug; 24(8):1251-62. PubMed ID: 21699217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Characterization and validation of an in silico toxicology model to predict the mutagenic potential of drug impurities.
Valerio LG; Cross KP
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2012 May; 260(3):209-21. PubMed ID: 22426359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. In Silico Study of In Vitro GPCR Assays by QSAR Modeling.
Mansouri K; Judson RS
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():361-81. PubMed ID: 27311474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Opportunities for an alternative integrating testing strategy for carcinogen hazard assessment?
Doktorova TY; Pauwels M; Vinken M; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2012 Feb; 42(2):91-106. PubMed ID: 22141324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling?
Martin TM; Harten P; Young DM; Muratov EN; Golbraikh A; Zhu H; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Oct; 52(10):2570-8. PubMed ID: 23030316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Application of the TGx-28.65 transcriptomic biomarker to classify genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells in the presence of rat liver S9.
Yauk CL; Buick JK; Williams A; Swartz CD; Recio L; Li HH; Fornace AJ; Thomson EM; Aubrecht J
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2016 May; 57(4):243-60. PubMed ID: 26946220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Metabolomics: a tool for early detection of toxicological effects and an opportunity for biology based grouping of chemicals-from QSAR to QBAR.
van Ravenzwaay B; Herold M; Kamp H; Kapp MD; Fabian E; Looser R; Krennrich G; Mellert W; Prokoudine A; Strauss V; Walk T; Wiemer J
Mutat Res; 2012 Aug; 746(2):144-50. PubMed ID: 22305969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Predicting developmental toxicity through toxicogenomics.
Daston GP; Naciff JM
Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today; 2010 Jun; 90(2):110-7. PubMed ID: 20544695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Comparison and possible use of in silico tools for carcinogenicity within REACH legislation.
Milan C; Schifanella O; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2011 Oct; 29(4):300-23. PubMed ID: 22107165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Transcriptomic responses generated by hepatocarcinogens in a battery of liver-based in vitro models.
Doktorova TY; Yildirimman R; Vinken M; Vilardell M; Vanhaecke T; Gmuender H; Bort R; Brolen G; Holmgren G; Li R; Chesne C; van Delft J; Kleinjans J; Castell J; Bjorquist P; Herwig R; Rogiers V
Carcinogenesis; 2013 Jun; 34(6):1393-402. PubMed ID: 23393228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals.
Mansouri K; Ringsted T; Ballabio D; Todeschini R; Consonni V
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Apr; 53(4):867-78. PubMed ID: 23469921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
