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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28385577)

  • 41. Construction and application of (Q)SAR models to predict chemical-induced in vitro chromosome aberrations.
    Hsu CW; Hewes KP; Stavitskaya L; Kruhlak NL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():274-288. PubMed ID: 30278198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Potentially mutagenic impurities: analysis of structural classes and carcinogenic potencies of chemical intermediates in pharmaceutical syntheses supports alternative methods to the default TTC for calculating safe levels of impurities.
    Galloway SM; Vijayaraj Reddy M; McGettigan K; Gealy R; Bercu J
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Aug; 66(3):326-35. PubMed ID: 23688841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey.
    Dobo KL; Greene N; Fred C; Glowienke S; Harvey JS; Hasselgren C; Jolly R; Kenyon MO; Munzner JB; Muster W; Neft R; Reddy MV; White AT; Weiner S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2012 Apr; 62(3):449-55. PubMed ID: 22321701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Mutagenic potential and structural alerts of phytotoxins.
    Bassan A; Pavan M; Lo Piparo E
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2023 Mar; 173():113562. PubMed ID: 36563927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A knowledge-based expert rule system for predicting mutagenicity (Ames test) of aromatic amines and azo compounds.
    Gadaleta D; Manganelli S; Manganaro A; Porta N; Benfenati E
    Toxicology; 2016 Aug; 370():20-30. PubMed ID: 27644887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Are all nitrosamines concerning? A review of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity data.
    Thresher A; Foster R; Ponting DJ; Stalford SA; Tennant RE; Thomas R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Oct; 116():104749. PubMed ID: 32777431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47.
    Benigni R; Bassan A; Pavan M
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2020 Aug; 16(8):651-662. PubMed ID: 32567390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Managing emerging mutagenicity risks: Late stage mutagenic impurity control within the atovaquone second generation synthesis.
    Urquhart MWJ; Bardsley B; Edwards AJ; Giddings A; Griva E; Harvey J; Hermitage S; King F; Leach S; Lesurf C; McKinlay C; Oxley P; Pham TN; Simpson A; Smith E; Stevenson N; Wade C; White A; Wooster N
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():22-32. PubMed ID: 30118726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Performance of In Silico Models for Mutagenicity Prediction of Food Contact Materials.
    Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Vanhaecke T; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
    Toxicol Sci; 2018 Jun; 163(2):632-638. PubMed ID: 29579255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Using in vitro structural alerts for chromosome damage to predict in vivo activity and direct future testing.
    Canipa S; Cayley A; Drewe WC; Williams RV; Hamada S; Hirose A; Honma M; Morita T
    Mutagenesis; 2016 Jan; 31(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 26142242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Evaluation of aromatic amines with different purities and different solvent vehicles in the Ames test.
    Harding AP; Popelier PL; Harvey J; Giddings A; Foster G; Kranz M
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Mar; 71(2):244-50. PubMed ID: 25542092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Predicting Ames Mutagenicity Using Conformal Prediction in the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
    Norinder U; Ahlberg E; Carlsson L
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 30541036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Bacterial mutagenicity test data: collection by the task force of the Japan pharmaceutical manufacturers association.
    Hakura A; Awogi T; Shiragiku T; Ohigashi A; Yamamoto M; Kanasaki K; Oka H; Dewa Y; Ozawa S; Sakamoto K; Kato T; Yamamura E
    Genes Environ; 2021 Sep; 43(1):41. PubMed ID: 34593056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Quantitative weight of evidence method for combining predictions of quantitative structure-activity relationship models.
    Tintó-Moliner A; Martin M
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2020 Apr; 31(4):261-279. PubMed ID: 32065534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. In silico assessment of genotoxicity. Combinations of sensitive structural alerts minimize false negative predictions for all genotoxicity endpoints and can single out chemicals for which experimentation can be avoided.
    Benigni R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Nov; 126():105042. PubMed ID: 34506881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Mutagenicity in a Molecule: Identification of Core Structural Features of Mutagenicity Using a Scaffold Analysis.
    Hsu KH; Su BH; Tu YS; Lin OA; Tseng YJ
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(2):e0148900. PubMed ID: 26863515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) and
    Prado-Ochoa MG; Strassburger-Madrigal M; Camacho-Carranza R; Espinosa-Aguirre JJ; Velázquez-Sánchez AM; Vázquez-Valadez VH; Angeles E; Alba-Hurtado F; Muñoz-Guzmán MA
    Biomed Res Int; 2020; 2020():2981681. PubMed ID: 33274201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.