163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22369964)
1. Validation of the (Q)SAR combination approach for mutagenicity prediction of flavor chemicals.
Ono A; Takahashi M; Hirose A; Kamata E; Kawamura T; Yamazaki T; Sato K; Yamada M; Fukumoto T; Okamura H; Mirokuji Y; Honma M
Food Chem Toxicol; 2012 May; 50(5):1538-46. PubMed ID: 22369964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Screening for Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
Honma M; Kitazawa A; Kasamatsu T; Sugiyama KI
Genes Environ; 2020 Nov; 42(1):32. PubMed ID: 33292765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of ames test mutagenicity.
Mazzatorta P; Tran LA; Schilter B; Grigorov M
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 17238246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Prediction of genotoxic potential of cosmetic ingredients by an in silico battery system consisting of a combination of an expert rule-based system and a statistics-based system.
Aiba née Kaneko M; Hirota M; Kouzuki H; Mori M
J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Feb; 40(1):77-98. PubMed ID: 25743748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems.
Hulzebos E; Sijm D; Traas T; Posthumus R; Maslankiewicz L
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2005 Aug; 16(4):385-401. PubMed ID: 16234178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models.
Morita T; Shigeta Y; Kawamura T; Fujita Y; Honda H; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 30085209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Identifying the structural requirements for chromosomal aberration by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals.
Mekenyan O; Todorov M; Serafimova R; Stoeva S; Aptula A; Finking R; Jacob E
Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Dec; 20(12):1927-41. PubMed ID: 18052113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Chemical structure of mutagens and carcinogens and the relationship with biological activity.
Benigni R
J Exp Clin Cancer Res; 2004 Mar; 23(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 15149144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model.
Mekenyan O; Dimitrov S; Serafimova R; Thompson E; Kotov S; Dimitrova N; Walker JD
Chem Res Toxicol; 2004 Jun; 17(6):753-66. PubMed ID: 15206896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In vitro and in silico genetic toxicity screening of flavor compounds and other ingredients in tobacco products with emphasis on ENDS.
Hung PH; Savidge M; De M; Kang JC; Healy SM; Valerio LG
J Appl Toxicol; 2020 Nov; 40(11):1566-1587. PubMed ID: 32662109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of a new quantitative structure-activity relationship model for predicting Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals using StarDrop™ auto-Modeller™.
Kasamatsu T; Kitazawa A; Tajima S; Kaneko M; Sugiyama KI; Yamada M; Yasui M; Masumura K; Horibata K; Honma M
Genes Environ; 2021 Apr; 43(1):16. PubMed ID: 33931133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model.
Serafimova R; Todorov M; Pavlov T; Kotov S; Jacob E; Aptula A; Mekenyan O
Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Apr; 20(4):662-76. PubMed ID: 17381132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The JFFMA assessment of flavoring substances structurally related to menthol and uniquely used in Japan.
Mirokuji Y; Abe H; Okamura H; Saito K; Sekiya F; Hayashi SM; Maruyama S; Ono A; Nakajima M; Degawa M; Ozawa S; Shibutani M; Maitani T
Food Chem Toxicol; 2014 Feb; 64():314-21. PubMed ID: 24309148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines.
Devillers J; Mombelli E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):753-69. PubMed ID: 21120760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.
Bakhtyari NG; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Martin T; Young D
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 23534394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity.
Votano JR; Parham M; Hall LH; Kier LB; Oloff S; Tropsha A; Xie Q; Tong W
Mutagenesis; 2004 Sep; 19(5):365-77. PubMed ID: 15388809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds.
Kulkarni SA; Barton-Maclaren TS
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(1):46-82. PubMed ID: 24598040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
