These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23086840)

  • 41. Computational prediction of genotoxicity: room for improvement.
    Snyder RD; Smith MD
    Drug Discov Today; 2005 Aug; 10(16):1119-24. PubMed ID: 16182197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 2. α-β unsaturated aliphatic aldehydes.
    Devillers J; Mombelli E
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):771-83. PubMed ID: 21120761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. In silico approaches to genetic toxicology: progress and future.
    Benigni R
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 30059987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Towards quantitative read across: Prediction of Ames mutagenicity in a large database.
    Benigni R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Nov; 108():104434. PubMed ID: 31374229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Testing computational toxicology models with phytochemicals.
    Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Busta E; Minnier BL; Kruhlak NL; Benz RD
    Mol Nutr Food Res; 2010 Feb; 54(2):186-94. PubMed ID: 20024931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.
    Ku WW; Bigger A; Brambilla G; Glatt H; Gocke E; Guzzie PJ; Hakura A; Honma M; Martus HJ; Obach RS; Roberts S;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):59-77. PubMed ID: 17141553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. In silico binary classification QSAR models based on 4D-fingerprints and MOE descriptors for prediction of hERG blockage.
    Su BH; Shen MY; Esposito EX; Hopfinger AJ; Tseng YJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jul; 50(7):1304-18. PubMed ID: 20565102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences.
    Valerio LG
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2009 Dec; 241(3):356-70. PubMed ID: 19716836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results.
    Benigni R; Bossa C; Worth A
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Jul; 25(4):335-41. PubMed ID: 20194420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Regulatory aspects of genotoxicity testing: from hazard identification to risk assessment.
    Blakey D; Galloway SM; Kirkland DJ; MacGregor JT
    Mutat Res; 2008 Nov; 657(1):84-90. PubMed ID: 18926925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. (Q)SAR tools for priority setting: A case study with printed paper and board food contact material substances.
    Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Manganelli S; Braeken E; Ates G; Vanhaecke T; Van Miert S; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Apr; 102():109-119. PubMed ID: 28163056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Possible genotoxic mechanisms of nanoparticles: criteria for improved test strategies.
    Donaldson K; Poland CA; Schins RP
    Nanotoxicology; 2010 Dec; 4():414-20. PubMed ID: 20925449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey.
    Dobo KL; Greene N; Fred C; Glowienke S; Harvey JS; Hasselgren C; Jolly R; Kenyon MO; Munzner JB; Muster W; Neft R; Reddy MV; White AT; Weiner S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2012 Apr; 62(3):449-55. PubMed ID: 22321701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Formation of mechanistic categories and local models to facilitate the prediction of toxicity.
    Cronin MT; Enoch SJ; Hewitt M; Madden JC
    ALTEX; 2011; 28(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 21311849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The proportions of mutagens among chemicals in commerce.
    Zeiger E; Margolin BH
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2000 Oct; 32(2):219-25. PubMed ID: 11067778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Structure-activity relationships for the mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of simple and alpha-beta unsaturated aldehydes.
    Benigni R; Passerini L; Rodomonte A
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2003; 42(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 14556221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Low efficiency of short-term tests in the assessment of the potential mutagenic hazard of chemical compounds to mammals].
    Tarasov VA; Velibekov RM; Liubimova IK; Aslanian MM
    Genetika; 2001 Jul; 37(7):1008-17. PubMed ID: 11558223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Inhibition of the genotoxicity of 3-amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-2) in Drosophila by chlorophyll.
    Negishi T; Arimoto S; Nishizaki C; Hayatsu H
    Basic Life Sci; 1990; 52():341-4. PubMed ID: 2109596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.