351 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27813437)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure.
White AC; Mueller RA; Gallavan RH; Aaron S; Wilson AG
Mutat Res; 2003 Aug; 539(1-2):77-89. PubMed ID: 12948816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Resolution of contradiction between in silico predictions and Ames test results for four pharmaceutically relevant impurities.
Gunther WC; Kenyon MO; Cheung JR; Dugger RW; Dobo KL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Dec; 91():68-76. PubMed ID: 29061373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mutagenicity assessment of two potential impurities in preparations of 5-amino-2,4,6 triiodoisophthalic acid, a key intermediate in the synthesis of the iodinated contrast agent iopamidol.
Rossi S; Bussi S; Bonafè R; Incardona C; Vurro E; Visigalli M; Buonsanti F; Fretta R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2024 Jan; 893():503720. PubMed ID: 38272634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Utility of published DNA reactivity alerts.
Myden A; Guesne SJ; Cayley A; Williams RV
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Aug; 88():77-86. PubMed ID: 28549899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. An evaluation of in-house and off-the-shelf in silico models: implications on guidance for mutagenicity assessment.
Jolly R; Ahmed KB; Zwickl C; Watson I; Gombar V
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Apr; 71(3):388-97. PubMed ID: 25656493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In silico model for mutagenicity (Ames test), taking into account metabolism.
Vian M; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):41-48. PubMed ID: 30715441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. In silico prediction of genotoxicity.
Wichard JD
Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 106(Pt B):595-599. PubMed ID: 27979779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Transformation of mutagenic aromatic amines into non-mutagenic species by alkyl substituents. Part II: alkylation far away from the amino function.
Glende C; Klein M; Schmitt H; Erdinger L; Boche G
Mutat Res; 2002 Mar; 515(1-2):15-38. PubMed ID: 11909752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity.
Hansen K; Mika S; Schroeter T; Sutter A; ter Laak A; Steger-Hartmann T; Heinrich N; Müller KR
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep; 49(9):2077-81. PubMed ID: 19702240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In silico prediction of the mutagenicity of nitroaromatic compounds using a novel two-QSAR approach.
Ding YL; Lyu YC; Leong MK
Toxicol In Vitro; 2017 Apr; 40():102-114. PubMed ID: 28027902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
