These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27461057)

  • 1. Potential carcinogenicity predicted by computational toxicity evaluation of thiophosphate pesticides using QSTR/QSCarciAR model.
    Petrescu AM; Ilia G
    Drug Chem Toxicol; 2017 Jul; 40(3):263-272. PubMed ID: 27461057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Structural alerts for estimating the carcinogenicity of pesticides and biocides.
    Devillers J; Mombelli E; Samsera R
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2011 Mar; 22(1-2):89-106. PubMed ID: 21391143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In Silico Methods for Carcinogenicity Assessment.
    Golbamaki A; Benfenati E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():107-19. PubMed ID: 27311464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency.
    Venkatapathy R; Wang CY; Bruce RM; Moudgal C
    Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2009 Jan; 234(2):209-21. PubMed ID: 18977375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods.
    Matthews EJ; Kruhlak NL; Cimino MC; Benz RD; Contrera JF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2006 Mar; 44(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 16352383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quantitative structure activity relationship for the computational prediction of nitrocompounds carcinogenicity.
    Morales AH; Pérez MA; Combes RD; González MP
    Toxicology; 2006 Mar; 220(1):51-62. PubMed ID: 16414170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Acute Rat and Mouse Oral Toxicity Determination of Anticholinesterase Inhibitor Carbamate Pesticides: A QSTR Approach.
    Roy PP; Banjare P; Verma S; Singh J
    Mol Inform; 2019 Aug; 38(8-9):e1800151. PubMed ID: 31066240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Development and validation of a robust QSAR model for prediction of carcinogenicity of drugs.
    Kar S; Roy K
    Indian J Biochem Biophys; 2011 Apr; 48(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 21682143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. QSTR modeling for qualitative and quantitative toxicity predictions of diverse chemical pesticides in honey bee for regulatory purposes.
    Singh KP; Gupta S; Basant N; Mohan D
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2014 Sep; 27(9):1504-15. PubMed ID: 25167463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Prediction of mammalian toxicity of organophosphorus pesticides from QSTR modeling.
    Devillers J
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004; 15(5-6):501-10. PubMed ID: 15669705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. SMILES-based optimal descriptors: QSAR modeling of carcinogenicity by balance of correlations with ideal slopes.
    Toropov AA; Toropova AP; Benfenati E
    Eur J Med Chem; 2010 Sep; 45(9):3581-7. PubMed ID: 20570021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Molecular docking study to evaluate the carcinogenic potential and mammalian toxicity of thiophosphonate pesticides by cluster and discriminant analysis.
    Petrescu AM; Ilia G
    Environ Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Oct; 47():62-78. PubMed ID: 27636985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Testing computational toxicology models with phytochemicals.
    Valerio LG; Arvidson KB; Busta E; Minnier BL; Kruhlak NL; Benz RD
    Mol Nutr Food Res; 2010 Feb; 54(2):186-94. PubMed ID: 20024931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparative QSTR studies for predicting mutagenicity of nitro compounds.
    Nair PC; Sobhia ME
    J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Feb; 26(6):916-34. PubMed ID: 17689994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship for acute oral toxicity of pesticides on rats: Validation, domain of application and prediction.
    Hamadache M; Benkortbi O; Hanini S; Amrane A; Khaouane L; Si Moussa C
    J Hazard Mater; 2016 Feb; 303():28-40. PubMed ID: 26513561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Potential health effects of drinking water disinfection by-products using quantitative structure toxicity relationship.
    Moudgal CJ; Lipscomb JC; Bruce RM
    Toxicology; 2000 Jun; 147(2):109-31. PubMed ID: 10874158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using molecular structural similarity and E-state indices.
    Contrera JF; Matthews EJ; Daniel Benz R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2003 Dec; 38(3):243-59. PubMed ID: 14623477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predicting aquatic toxicities of chemical pesticides in multiple test species using nonlinear QSTR modeling approaches.
    Basant N; Gupta S; Singh KP
    Chemosphere; 2015 Nov; 139():246-55. PubMed ID: 26142614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Toxicity study of allelochemical-like pesticides by a combination of 3D-QSAR, docking, Local Binding Energy (LBE) and GRID approaches.
    Fratev F; Lo Piparo E; Benfenati E; Mihaylova E
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2007; 18(7-8):675-92. PubMed ID: 18038367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.