345 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30357358)
21. 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]
22. Fragment Prioritization on a Large Mutagenicity Dataset.
Floris M; Raitano G; Medda R; Benfenati E
Mol Inform; 2017 Jul; 36(7):. PubMed ID: 28032691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained.
Barber C; Cayley A; Hanser T; Harding A; Heghes C; Vessey JD; Werner S; Weiner SK; Wichard J; Giddings A; Glowienke S; Parenty A; Brigo A; Spirkl HP; Amberg A; Kemper R; Greene N
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Apr; 76():7-20. PubMed ID: 26708083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Strategy proposal using QSAR models to approach mutagenicity assessment of non intentionally added substances in recycled plastic resins.
Djelassi I; Lancia P; Thuillier I; Ginestar J; Fioravanzo E; Baleydier A
Food Chem Toxicol; 2024 May; 187():114597. PubMed ID: 38492856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity
Benfenati E; Golbamaki A; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Manganelli S; Lemke F; Norinder U; Lo Piparo E; Honma M; Manganaro A; Gini G
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):591-611. PubMed ID: 30052064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. Machine learning - Predicting Ames mutagenicity of small molecules.
Chu CSM; Simpson JD; O'Neill PM; Berry NG
J Mol Graph Model; 2021 Dec; 109():108011. PubMed ID: 34555723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of ames test mutagenicity.
Mazzatorta P; Tran LA; Schilter B; Grigorov M
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 17238246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Multitask Deep Neural Networks for Ames Mutagenicity Prediction.
Martínez MJ; Sabando MV; Soto AJ; Roca C; Requena-Triguero C; Campillo NE; Páez JA; Ponzoni I
J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Dec; 62(24):6342-6351. PubMed ID: 36066065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model.
Mekenyan O; Dimitrov S; Serafimova R; Thompson E; Kotov S; Dimitrova N; Walker JD
Chem Res Toxicol; 2004 Jun; 17(6):753-66. PubMed ID: 15206896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Establishing best practise in the application of expert review of mutagenicity under ICH M7.
Barber C; Amberg A; Custer L; Dobo KL; Glowienke S; Van Gompel J; Gutsell S; Harvey J; Honma M; Kenyon MO; Kruhlak N; Muster W; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; Vessey J; Wichard J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Oct; 73(1):367-77. PubMed ID: 26248005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
