97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26565432)
1. In silico exploratory study using structure-activity relationship models and metabolic information for prediction of mutagenicity based on the Ames test and rodent micronucleus assay.
Kamath P; Raitano G; Fernández A; Rallo R; Benfenati E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2015 Dec; 26(12):1017-1031. PubMed ID: 26565432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model.
Serafimova R; Todorov M; Pavlov T; Kotov S; Jacob E; Aptula A; Mekenyan O
Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Apr; 20(4):662-76. PubMed ID: 17381132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Multiple Instance Learning Improves Ames Mutagenicity Prediction for Problematic Molecular Species.
Feeney SV; Lui R; Guan D; Matthews S
Chem Res Toxicol; 2023 Aug; 36(8):1227-1237. PubMed ID: 37477941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. New in silico models to predict in vitro micronucleus induction as marker of genotoxicity.
Baderna D; Gadaleta D; Lostaglio E; Selvestrel G; Raitano G; Golbamaki A; Lombardo A; Benfenati E
J Hazard Mater; 2020 Mar; 385():121638. PubMed ID: 31757721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
Honma M
Genes Environ; 2020; 42():23. PubMed ID: 32626544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of in silico models for prioritization of heat-induced food contaminants in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity testing.
Frenzel F; Buhrke T; Wenzel I; Andrack J; Hielscher J; Lampen A
Arch Toxicol; 2017 Sep; 91(9):3157-3174. PubMed ID: 28091709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model.
Mekenyan O; Dimitrov S; Serafimova R; Thompson E; Kotov S; Dimitrova N; Walker JD
Chem Res Toxicol; 2004 Jun; 17(6):753-66. PubMed ID: 15206896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Structure-activity considerations and in vitro approaches to assess the genotoxicity of 19 methane-, benzene- and toluenesulfonic acid esters.
Glowienke S; Frieauff W; Allmendinger T; Martus HJ; Suter W; Mueller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Mar; 581(1-2):23-34. PubMed ID: 15725602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds.
Kulkarni SA; Barton-Maclaren TS
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(1):46-82. PubMed ID: 24598040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity
Benfenati E; Golbamaki A; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Manganelli S; Lemke F; Norinder U; Lo Piparo E; Honma M; Manganaro A; Gini G
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):591-611. PubMed ID: 30052064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.
Kirkland D; Reeve L; Gatehouse D; Vanparys P
Mutat Res; 2011 Mar; 721(1):27-73. PubMed ID: 21238603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
