128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24598040)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. The relation between Ames test data and electronic structure for a series of benzidine derivatives investigated by using cluster analysis.
Imamura A; Tani S; Taketoshi M; Danzuka T
Jpn J Cancer Res; 1985 Oct; 76(10):937-45. PubMed ID: 3935625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods.
Worth AP; Bassan A; De Bruijn J; Gallegos Saliner A; Netzeva T; Patlewicz G; Pavan M; Tsakovska I; Eisenreich S
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2007; 18(1-2):111-25. PubMed ID: 17365963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials
Food Chem Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 46 Suppl 1():S2-70. PubMed ID: 18328408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparative metabolism and mutagenicity of azo and hydrazone dyes in the Ames test.
De France BF; Carter MH; Josephy PD
Food Chem Toxicol; 1986 Feb; 24(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 3957165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of ames genotoxicity: a retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation.
Cassano A; Raitano G; Mombelli E; Fernández A; Cester J; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(3):273-98. PubMed ID: 25226221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Searching for an enhanced predictive tool for mutagenicity.
Klopman G; Zhu H; Fuller MA; Saiakhov RD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004 Aug; 15(4):251-63. PubMed ID: 15370416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Integrated approach to assess the domain of applicability of some commercial (Q)SAR models.
Kulkarni SA; Zhu J
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(1-2):39-54. PubMed ID: 18311633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Perspective of predictive toxicity assessment of in vivo repeated dose toxicity using structural activity relationship].
Ono A
Kokuritsu Iyakuhin Shokuhin Eisei Kenkyusho Hokoku; 2010; (128):44-9. PubMed ID: 21381395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Improving the applicability of (Q)SARs for percutaneous penetration in regulatory risk assessment.
Bouwman T; Cronin MT; Bessems JG; van de Sandt JJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Apr; 27(4):269-76. PubMed ID: 18684796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The role of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs.
Worth AP; Hartung T; Van Leeuwen CJ
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004; 15(5-6):345-58. PubMed ID: 15669694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Building on a solid foundation: SAR and QSAR as a fundamental strategy to reduce animal testing.
Sullivan KM; Manuppello JR; Willett CE
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 24773450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure.
Araya S; Lovsin-Barle E; Glowienke S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Nov; 73(2):515-20. PubMed ID: 26454093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. (Q)SAR: A Tool for the Toxicologist.
Steinbach T; Gad-McDonald S; Kruhlak N; Powley M; Greene N
Int J Toxicol; 2015; 34(4):352-4. PubMed ID: 25979517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
