275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23669331)
61. Potentially mutagenic impurities: analysis of structural classes and carcinogenic potencies of chemical intermediates in pharmaceutical syntheses supports alternative methods to the default TTC for calculating safe levels of impurities.
Galloway SM; Vijayaraj Reddy M; McGettigan K; Gealy R; Bercu J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Aug; 66(3):326-35. PubMed ID: 23688841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Mutagenic potential and structural alerts of phytotoxins.
Bassan A; Pavan M; Lo Piparo E
Food Chem Toxicol; 2023 Mar; 173():113562. PubMed ID: 36563927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Hydromorphone impurity 2,2-bishydromorphone does not exert mutagenic and clastogenic properties via
Franckenstein D; Bothe MK; Hurtado SB; Westphal M
Drug Chem Toxicol; 2023 Nov; 46(4):634-639. PubMed ID: 35603474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. (Q)SAR tools for the prediction of mutagenic properties: Are they ready for application in pesticide regulation?
Herrmann K; Holzwarth A; Rime S; Fischer BC; Kneuer C
Pest Manag Sci; 2020 Oct; 76(10):3316-3325. PubMed ID: 32223060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. 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]
66. In silico assessment of genotoxicity. Combinations of sensitive structural alerts minimize false negative predictions for all genotoxicity endpoints and can single out chemicals for which experimentation can be avoided.
Benigni R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Nov; 126():105042. PubMed ID: 34506881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. A perspective on testing of existing pharmaceutical excipients for genotoxic impurities.
Brusick DJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2009 Nov; 55(2):200-4. PubMed ID: 19607870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. How to assess the mutagenic potential of cosmetic products without animal tests?
Speit G
Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 19379833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. A local QSAR model based on the stability of nitrenium ions to support the ICH M7 expert review on the mutagenicity of primary aromatic amines.
Furukawa A; Ono S; Yamada K; Torimoto N; Asayama M; Muto S
Genes Environ; 2022 Mar; 44(1):10. PubMed ID: 35313995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Retrospective application of ICH M7 to anti-hypertensive drugs in Brazil: Risk assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities.
Waechter F; Falcao Oliveira AA; Borges Shimada AL; Bernes Junior E; de Souza Nascimento E
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2024 Jun; 151():105669. PubMed ID: 38936796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained.
Barber C; Cayley A; Hanser T; Harding A; Heghes C; Vessey JD; Werner S; Weiner SK; Wichard J; Giddings A; Glowienke S; Parenty A; Brigo A; Spirkl HP; Amberg A; Kemper R; Greene N
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():7-20. PubMed ID: 26708083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Predicting the mutagenic potential of chemicals in tobacco products using
Goel R; Valerio LG
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2020 Nov; 30(9):672-678. PubMed ID: 32752976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. QSAR and metabolic assessment tools in the assessment of genotoxicity.
Worth AP; Lapenna S; Serafimova R
Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 930():125-62. PubMed ID: 23086840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. ToxRead: a tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals.
Gini G; Franchi AM; Manganaro A; Golbamaki A; Benfenati E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(12):999-1011. PubMed ID: 25511972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Quantitative weight of evidence method for combining predictions of quantitative structure-activity relationship models.
Tintó-Moliner A; Martin M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2020 Apr; 31(4):261-279. PubMed ID: 32065534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. (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]
78. Performance of In Silico Models for Mutagenicity Prediction of Food Contact Materials.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Vanhaecke T; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
Toxicol Sci; 2018 Jun; 163(2):632-638. PubMed ID: 29579255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. 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]
80. In silico approaches to predicting cancer potency for risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in drug substances.
Bercu JP; Morton SM; Deahl JT; Gombar VK; Callis CM; van Lier RB
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010; 57(2-3):300-6. PubMed ID: 20363275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
