197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25743748)
1. Prediction of genotoxic potential of cosmetic ingredients by an in silico battery system consisting of a combination of an expert rule-based system and a statistics-based system.
Aiba née Kaneko M; Hirota M; Kouzuki H; Mori M
J Toxicol Sci; 2015 Feb; 40(1):77-98. PubMed ID: 25743748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities.
Sutter A; Amberg A; Boyer S; Brigo A; Contrera JF; Custer LL; Dobo KL; Gervais V; Glowienke S; van Gompel J; Greene N; Muster W; Nicolette J; Reddy MV; Thybaud V; Vock E; White AT; Müller L
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Oct; 67(1):39-52. PubMed ID: 23669331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. The Consultancy Activity on In Silico Models for Genotoxic Prediction of Pharmaceutical Impurities.
Pavan M; Kovarich S; Bassan A; Broccardo L; Yang C; Fioravanzo E
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():511-29. PubMed ID: 27311479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative evaluation of 11 in silico models for the prediction of small molecule mutagenicity: role of steric hindrance and electron-withdrawing groups.
Ford KA; Ryslik G; Chan BK; Lewin-Koh SC; Almeida D; Stokes M; Gomez SR
Toxicol Mech Methods; 2017 Jan; 27(1):24-35. PubMed ID: 27813437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: an appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes.
Kirkland DJ; Henderson L; Marzin D; Müller L; Parry JM; Speit G; Tweats DJ; Williams GM
Mutat Res; 2005 Dec; 588(2):88-105. PubMed ID: 16326131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Way forward in case of a false positive in vitro genotoxicity result for a cosmetic substance?
Doktorova TY; Ates G; Vinken M; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V
Toxicol In Vitro; 2014 Feb; 28(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 24095862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Retrospective analysis of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity data of the cosmetic ingredients present on the Annexes of the Cosmetic EU legislation (2000-12).
Ates G; Doktorova TY; Pauwels M; Rogiers V
Mutagenesis; 2014 Mar; 29(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 24435663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In silico tools and transcriptomics analyses in the mutagenicity assessment of cosmetic ingredients: a proof-of-principle on how to add weight to the evidence.
Ates G; Raitano G; Heymans A; Van Bossuyt M; Vanparys P; Mertens B; Chesne C; Roncaglioni A; Milushev D; Benfenati E; Rogiers V; Doktorova TY
Mutagenesis; 2016 Jul; 31(4):453-61. PubMed ID: 26980085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Validation of Toxtree and SciQSAR in silico predictive software using a publicly available benchmark mutagenicity database and their applicability for the qualification of impurities in pharmaceuticals.
Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Nov; 67(2):285-93. PubMed ID: 23969001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Test battery with the human cell line activation test, direct peptide reactivity assay and DEREK based on a 139 chemical data set for predicting skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals.
Takenouchi O; Fukui S; Okamoto K; Kurotani S; Imai N; Fujishiro M; Kyotani D; Kato Y; Kasahara T; Fujita M; Toyoda A; Sekiya D; Watanabe S; Seto H; Hirota M; Ashikaga T; Miyazawa M
J Appl Toxicol; 2015 Nov; 35(11):1318-32. PubMed ID: 25820183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive Estimate of Risk from Existing Knowledge. Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology.
Cariello NF; Wilson JD; Britt BH; Wedd DJ; Burlinson B; Gombar V
Mutagenesis; 2002 Jul; 17(4):321-9. PubMed ID: 12110629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Müller L; Makoto H
Mutat Res; 2006 Sep; 608(1):29-42. PubMed ID: 16769241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
