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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29579255)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity.
    Bakhtyari NG; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Martin T; Young D
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2013; 31(1):45-66. PubMed ID: 23534394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. (Q)SAR tools for priority setting: A case study with printed paper and board food contact material substances.
    Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Manganelli S; Braeken E; Ates G; Vanhaecke T; Van Miert S; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Apr; 102():109-119. PubMed ID: 28163056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Integrated strategy for mutagenicity prediction applied to food contact chemicals.
    Manganelli S; Schilter B; Benfenati E; Manganaro A; Lo Piparo E
    ALTEX; 2018; 35(2):169-178. PubMed ID: 28922667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses.
    Landry C; Kim MT; Kruhlak NL; Cross KP; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Stavitskaya L
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Dec; 109():104488. PubMed ID: 31586682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Extrapolation of in vitro structural alerts for mutagenicity to the in vivo endpoint.
    Tennant RE; Guesné SJ; Canipa S; Cayley A; Drewe WC; Honma M; Masumura K; Morita T; Stalford SA; Williams RV
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):111-121. PubMed ID: 30281100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessment of predictivity of volatile organic compounds carcinogenicity and mutagenicity by freeware in silico models.
    Guerra LR; de Souza AMT; Côrtes JA; Lione VOF; Castro HC; Alves GG
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Dec; 91():1-8. PubMed ID: 28970106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Evaluation of in silico tools to predict the skin sensitization potential of chemicals.
    Verheyen GR; Braeken E; Van Deun K; Van Miert S
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2017 Jan; 28(1):59-73. PubMed ID: 28105856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Validation of Toxtree and SciQSAR in silico predictive software using a publicly available benchmark mutagenicity database and their applicability for the qualification of impurities in pharmaceuticals.
    Contrera JF
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Nov; 67(2):285-93. PubMed ID: 23969001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
    Honma M; Kitazawa A; Cayley A; Williams RV; Barber C; Hanser T; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Myatt GJ; Cross KP; Benfenati E; Raitano G; Mekenyan O; Petkov P; Bossa C; Benigni R; Battistelli CL; Giuliani A; Tcheremenskaia O; DeMeo C; Norinder U; Koga H; Jose C; Jeliazkova N; Kochev N; Paskaleva V; Yang C; Daga PR; Clark RD; Rathman J
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 30357358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: A case study using aromatic amine mutagenicity.
    Ahlberg E; Amberg A; Beilke LD; Bower D; Cross KP; Custer L; Ford KA; Van Gompel J; Harvey J; Honma M; Jolly R; Joossens E; Kemper RA; Kenyon M; Kruhlak N; Kuhnke L; Leavitt P; Naven R; Neilan C; Quigley DP; Shuey D; Spirkl HP; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; White A; Wichard J; Zwickl C; Myatt GJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 77():1-12. PubMed ID: 26879463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance.
    Teubner W; Mehling A; Schuster PX; Guth K; Worth A; Burton J; van Ravenzwaay B; Landsiedel R
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 67(3):468-85. PubMed ID: 24090701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.