247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26986491)
1. New clues on carcinogenicity-related substructures derived from mining two large datasets of chemical compounds.
Golbamaki A; Benfenati E; Golbamaki N; Manganaro A; Merdivan E; Roncaglioni A; Gini G
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2016 Apr; 34(2):97-113. PubMed ID: 26986491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The influence of chemical structure on the extent and sites of carcinogenesis for 522 rodent carcinogens and 55 different human carcinogen exposures.
Ashby J; Paton D
Mutat Res; 1993 Mar; 286(1):3-74. PubMed ID: 7678908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans.
Osimitz TG; Droege W; Boobis AR; Lake BG
Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Oct; 60():550-62. PubMed ID: 23954551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction.
Lagunin AA; Dearden JC; Filimonov DA; Poroikov VV
Mutat Res; 2005 Oct; 586(2):138-46. PubMed ID: 16112600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are genotoxic carcinogens more potent than nongenotoxic carcinogens?
Parodi S; Malacarne D; Romano P; Taningher M
Environ Health Perspect; 1991 Nov; 95():199-204. PubMed ID: 1821372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Combining machine learning models of in vitro and in vivo bioassays improves rat carcinogenicity prediction.
Guan D; Fan K; Spence I; Matthews S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Apr; 94():8-15. PubMed ID: 29337192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A decision tree-based integrated testing strategy for tailor-made carcinogenicity evaluation of test substances using genotoxicity test results and chemical spaces.
Fujita Y; Honda H; Yamane M; Morita T; Matsuda T; Morita O
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):101-109. PubMed ID: 30551173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity.
Petkov PI; Schultz TW; Donner EM; Honma M; Morita T; Hamada S; Wakata A; Mishima M; Maniwa J; Todorov M; Kaloyanova E; Kotov S; Mekenyan OG
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 36(12):1536-1550. PubMed ID: 27225589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Genomic models of short-term exposure accurately predict long-term chemical carcinogenicity and identify putative mechanisms of action.
Gusenleitner D; Auerbach SS; Melia T; Gómez HF; Sherr DH; Monti S
PLoS One; 2014; 9(7):e102579. PubMed ID: 25058030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Liver specificity of the carcinogenicity of NOCs: a chemical-molecular perspective.
Yuan J; Pu Y; Yin L
Chem Res Toxicol; 2012 Nov; 25(11):2432-42. PubMed ID: 23043541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Identification of 'genotoxic' and 'non-genotoxic' alerts for cancer in mice: the carcinogenic potency database.
Cunningham AR; Rosenkranz HS; Zhang YP; Klopman G
Mutat Res; 1998 Feb; 398(1-2):1-17. PubMed ID: 9626960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quantitative structure-carcinogenicity relationship for detecting structural alerts in nitroso compounds: species, rat; sex, female; route of administration, gavage.
Morales Helguera A; Pérez González M; Dias Soeiro Cordeiro MN; Cabrera Pérez MA
Chem Res Toxicol; 2008 Mar; 21(3):633-42. PubMed ID: 18293904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In Silico Methods for Carcinogenicity Assessment.
Golbamaki A; Benfenati E; Roncaglioni A
Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2425():201-215. PubMed ID: 35188634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. International regulatory needs for development of an IATA for non-genotoxic carcinogenic chemical substances.
Jacobs MN; Colacci A; Louekari K; Luijten M; Hakkert BC; Paparella M; Vasseur P
ALTEX; 2016; 33(4):359-392. PubMed ID: 27120445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In silico genotoxicity and carcinogenicity prediction for food-relevant secondary plant metabolites.
Glück J; Buhrke T; Frenzel F; Braeuning A; Lampen A
Food Chem Toxicol; 2018 Jun; 116(Pt B):298-306. PubMed ID: 29660365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay for toxicity prediction: are we there yet?
Benigni R
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Apr; 8(4):407-17. PubMed ID: 22360376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
