BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25226221)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. In silico models for predicting ready biodegradability under REACH: a comparative study.
    Pizzo F; Lombardo A; Manganaro A; Benfenati E
    Sci Total Environ; 2013 Oct; 463-464():161-8. PubMed ID: 23796884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals.
    Mombelli E; Devillers J
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):731-52. PubMed ID: 21120759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Evaluation and comparison of benchmark QSAR models to predict a relevant REACH endpoint: The bioconcentration factor (BCF).
    Gissi A; Lombardo A; Roncaglioni A; Gadaleta D; Mangiatordi GF; Nicolotti O; Benfenati E
    Environ Res; 2015 Feb; 137():398-409. PubMed ID: 25616163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: A Weight of Evidence Approach Integrating Information from QSAR Models and Read-Across Predictions.
    Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2425():149-183. PubMed ID: 35188632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: How to Use QSAR Models and Interpret Their Results.
    Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():87-105. PubMed ID: 27311463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. In-silico screening of high production volume chemicals for mutagenicity using the MCASE QSAR expert system.
    Klopman G; Chakravarti SK; Harris N; Ivanov J; Saiakhov RD
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Apr; 14(2):165-80. PubMed ID: 12747573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development.
    Westerink WM; Stevenson JC; Lauwers A; Griffioen G; Horbach GJ; Schoonen WG
    Mutat Res; 2009 May; 676(1-2):113-30. PubMed ID: 19393335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
    Honma M; Kitazawa A; Cayley A; Williams RV; Barber C; Hanser T; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Myatt GJ; Cross KP; Benfenati E; Raitano G; Mekenyan O; Petkov P; Bossa C; Benigni R; Battistelli CL; Giuliani A; Tcheremenskaia O; DeMeo C; Norinder U; Koga H; Jose C; Jeliazkova N; Kochev N; Paskaleva V; Yang C; Daga PR; Clark RD; Rathman J
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 30357358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set.
    Sushko I; Novotarskyi S; Körner R; Pandey AK; Cherkasov A; Li J; Gramatica P; Hansen K; Schroeter T; Müller KR; Xi L; Liu H; Yao X; Öberg T; Hormozdiari F; Dao P; Sahinalp C; Todeschini R; Polishchuk P; Artemenko A; Kuz'min V; Martin TM; Young DM; Fourches D; Muratov E; Tropsha A; Baskin I; Horvath D; Marcou G; Muller C; Varnek A; Prokopenko VV; Tetko IV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2094-111. PubMed ID: 21033656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. QSAR screening of 70,983 REACH substances for genotoxic carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and developmental toxicity in the ChemScreen project.
    Wedebye EB; Dybdahl M; Nikolov NG; Jónsdóttir SÓ; Niemelä JR
    Reprod Toxicol; 2015 Aug; 55():64-72. PubMed ID: 25797653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. In silico screening of chemicals for bacterial mutagenicity using electrotopological E-state indices and MDL QSAR software.
    Contrera JF; Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Benz RD
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Dec; 43(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 16242226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations.
    Hillebrecht A; Muster W; Brigo A; Kansy M; Weiser T; Singer T
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jun; 24(6):843-54. PubMed ID: 21534561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.