358 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23688841)
41. Mechanisms of Nitrosamine Mutagenicity and Their Relationship to Rodent Carcinogenic Potency.
Snodin DJ; Trejo-Martin A; Ponting DJ; Smith GF; Czich A; Cross K; Custer L; Elloway J; Greene N; Kalgutkar AS; Stalford SA; Tennant RE; Vock E; Zalewski A; Ziegler V; Dobo KL
Chem Res Toxicol; 2024 Feb; 37(2):181-198. PubMed ID: 38316048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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]
43. Exploring relationships between mutagenic and carcinogenic potencies.
Piegorsch WW; Hoel DG
Mutat Res; 1988 Sep; 196(2):161-75. PubMed ID: 3419441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Resolution of contradiction between in silico predictions and Ames test results for four pharmaceutically relevant impurities.
Gunther WC; Kenyon MO; Cheung JR; Dugger RW; Dobo KL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Dec; 91():68-76. PubMed ID: 29061373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Quantitative structure-activity relationship modelling of the carcinogenic risk of nitroso compounds using regression analysis and the TOPS-MODE approach.
Helguera AM; Pérez-Machado G; Cordeiro MN; Combes RD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Apr; 21(3-4):277-304. PubMed ID: 20544552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Carbamates and ICH M7 classification: Making use of expert knowledge.
Hemingway R; Fowkes A; Williams RV
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Jun; 86():392-401. PubMed ID: 28385577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Refining the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for risk prioritization of trace chemicals in food.
Felter S; Lane RW; Latulippe ME; Llewellyn GC; Olin SS; Scimeca JA; Trautman TD
Food Chem Toxicol; 2009 Sep; 47(9):2236-45. PubMed ID: 19531369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Improved prediction of carcinogenic potencies from mutagenic potencies for chemicals positive in rodents and the Ames test.
Bogen KT
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1995; 25(1):37-49. PubMed ID: 7875124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Application of SAR methods to non-congeneric data bases associated with carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: issues and approaches.
Richard AM
Mutat Res; 1994 Feb; 305(1):73-97. PubMed ID: 7508549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and COMPACT analysis of a series of food mutagens.
Lewis DF; Ioannides C; Walker R; Parke DV
Food Addit Contam; 1995; 12(5):715-23. PubMed ID: 8522037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. A deep dive into historical Ames study data for N-nitrosamine compounds.
Tennant RE; Ponting DJ; Thresher A
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2023 Sep; 143():105460. PubMed ID: 37495012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. QSARS of mutagens and carcinogens: two case studies illustrating problems in the construction of models for noncongeneric chemicals.
Benigni R; Richard AM
Mutat Res; 1996 Nov; 371(1-2):29-46. PubMed ID: 8950348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. An overview of values for the threshold of toxicological concern.
Hennes EC
Toxicol Lett; 2012 Jun; 211(3):296-303. PubMed ID: 22483990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. An evaluation of the sensitivity of the Ames assay to discern low-level mutagenic impurities.
Kenyon MO; Cheung JR; Dobo KL; Ku WW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Jun; 48(1):75-86. PubMed ID: 17379368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives.
Benfenati E; Benigni R; Demarini DM; Helma C; Kirkland D; Martin TM; Mazzatorta P; Ouédraogo-Arras G; Richard AM; Schilter B; Schoonen WG; Snyder RD; Yang C
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2009 Apr; 27(2):57-90. PubMed ID: 19412856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern approach to ingredients in personal and household care products.
Blackburn K; Stickney JA; Carlson-Lynch HL; McGinnis PM; Chappell L; Felter SP
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Dec; 43(3):249-59. PubMed ID: 16213074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Characterizing Extractables and Leachables Chemical Space to Support In Silico Toxicological Hazard Assessments.
Johnson C; Bassan A; Kiehl D; Paskiet D; Pavan M; Parris P; Whelan G; Burild A; Myatt GJ
PDA J Pharm Sci Technol; 2024 Jun; 78(3):237-311. PubMed ID: 38942479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of N-nitroso compounds.
Lijinsky W
Mol Toxicol; 1987; 1(1):107-19. PubMed ID: 3329700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities.
Fioravanzo E; Bassan A; Pavan M; Mostrag-Szlichtyng A; Worth AP
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2012; 23(3-4):257-77. PubMed ID: 22369620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
