209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30260416)
1. Data-based review of QSARs for predicting genotoxicity: the state of the art.
Benigni R; Bossa C
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 30260416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of QSAR models for predicting mutagenicity: outcome of the Second Ames/QSAR international challenge project.
Furuhama A; Kitazawa A; Yao J; Matos Dos Santos CE; Rathman J; Yang C; Ribeiro JV; Cross K; Myatt G; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Jeliazkova N; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Foster RS; Bossa C; Battistelli CL; Benigni R; Sawada T; Wasada H; Hashimoto T; Wu M; Barzilay R; Daga PR; Clark RD; Mestres J; Montero A; Gregori-Puigjané E; Petkov P; Ivanova H; Mekenyan O; Matthews S; Guan D; Spicer J; Lui R; Uesawa Y; Kurosaki K; Matsuzaka Y; Sasaki S; Cronin MTD; Belfield SJ; Firman JW; Spînu N; Qiu M; Keca JM; Gini G; Li T; Tong W; Hong H; Liu Z; Igarashi Y; Yamada H; Sugiyama KI; Honma M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2023; 34(12):983-1001. PubMed ID: 38047445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.
Madia F; Kirkland D; Morita T; White P; Asturiol D; Corvi R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2020; 854-855():503199. PubMed ID: 32660827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity.
Patlewicz G; Rodford R; Walker JD
Environ Toxicol Chem; 2003 Aug; 22(8):1885-93. PubMed ID: 12924587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities.
Valencia A; Prous J; Mora O; Sadrieh N; Valerio LG
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 273(3):427-34. PubMed ID: 24090816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? I. Reports of individual databases presented at an EURL ECVAM Workshop.
Kirkland D; Zeiger E; Madia F; Gooderham N; Kasper P; Lynch A; Morita T; Ouedraogo G; Parra Morte JM; Pfuhler S; Rogiers V; Schulz M; Thybaud V; van Benthem J; Vanparys P; Worth A; Corvi R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2014 Dec; 775-776():55-68. PubMed ID: 25435356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Towards quantitative read across: Prediction of Ames mutagenicity in a large database.
Benigni R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Nov; 108():104434. PubMed ID: 31374229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities.
Fioravanzo E; Bassan A; Pavan M; Mostrag-Szlichtyng A; Worth AP
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2012; 23(3-4):257-77. PubMed ID: 22369620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.
Kirkland D; Reeve L; Gatehouse D; Vanparys P
Mutat Res; 2011 Mar; 721(1):27-73. PubMed ID: 21238603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A practice of expert review by read-across using QSAR Toolbox.
Fukuchi J; Kitazawa A; Hirabayashi K; Honma M
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 30690463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. (Q)SAR Methods for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity: Scientific Rationale and Regulatory Frameworks.
Bossa C; Benigni R; Tcheremenskaia O; Battistelli CL
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1800():447-473. PubMed ID: 29934905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity.
Votano JR; Parham M; Hall LH; Kier LB; Oloff S; Tropsha A; Xie Q; Tong W
Mutagenesis; 2004 Sep; 19(5):365-77. PubMed ID: 15388809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? II. Construction and analysis of a consolidated database.
Kirkland D; Zeiger E; Madia F; Corvi R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2014 Dec; 775-776():69-80. PubMed ID: 25435357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
