350 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30357358)
61. 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]
62. 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]
63. 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]
64. Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of ames genotoxicity: a retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation.
Cassano A; Raitano G; Mombelli E; Fernández A; Cester J; Roncaglioni A; Benfenati E
J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(3):273-98. PubMed ID: 25226221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. 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]
66. In Silico Approaches in Predictive Genetic Toxicology.
Sinha M; Dhawan A; Parthasarathi R
Methods Mol Biol; 2019; 2031():351-373. PubMed ID: 31473971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Progress in Predicting Ames Test Outcomes from Chemical Structures: An In-Depth Re-Evaluation of Models from the 1st and 2nd Ames/QSAR International Challenge Projects.
Uesawa Y
Int J Mol Sci; 2024 Jan; 25(3):. PubMed ID: 38338650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Prediction on the mutagenicity of nitroaromatic compounds using quantum chemistry descriptors based QSAR and machine learning derived classification methods.
Hao Y; Sun G; Fan T; Sun X; Liu Y; Zhang N; Zhao L; Zhong R; Peng Y
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2019 Dec; 186():109822. PubMed ID: 31634658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. 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]
70. Prediction of PAH mutagenicity in human cells by QSAR classification.
Papa E; Pilutti P; Gramatica P
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(1-2):115-27. PubMed ID: 18311639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Use of orbitrap-MS/MS and QSAR analyses to estimate mutagenic transformation products of iopamidol generated during ozonation and chlorination.
Matsushita T; Hashizuka M; Kuriyama T; Matsui Y; Shirasaki N
Chemosphere; 2016 Apr; 148():233-40. PubMed ID: 26807944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. A local QSAR model based on the stability of nitrenium ions to support the ICH M7 expert review on the mutagenicity of primary aromatic amines.
Furukawa A; Ono S; Yamada K; Torimoto N; Asayama M; Muto S
Genes Environ; 2022 Mar; 44(1):10. PubMed ID: 35313995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Development of a read-across-derived classification model for the predictions of mutagenicity data and its comparison with traditional QSAR models and expert systems.
Pandey SK; Roy K
Toxicology; 2023 Dec; 500():153676. PubMed ID: 37993082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. 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]
75. Relationships between chemical structures and mutagenicity: a preliminary survey for a database of mutagenicity test results of new work place chemicals.
Sawatari K; Nakanishi Y; Matsushima T
Ind Health; 2001 Oct; 39(4):341-5. PubMed ID: 11758998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: is aromatic N-oxide a structural alert for predicting DNA-reactive mutagenicity?
Amberg A; Anger LT; Bercu J; Bower D; Cross KP; Custer L; Harvey JS; Hasselgren C; Honma M; Johnson C; Jolly R; Kenyon MO; Kruhlak NL; Leavitt P; Quigley DP; Miller S; Snodin D; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; Trejo-Martin A; White AT; Wichard J; Myatt GJ
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):67-82. PubMed ID: 30189015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. 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]
78. Improved in silico prediction of carcinogenic potency (TD50) and the risk specific dose (RSD) adjusted Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for genotoxic chemicals and pharmaceutical impurities.
Contrera JF
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Feb; 59(1):133-41. PubMed ID: 20933038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Prediction of aromatic amines mutagenicity from theoretical molecular descriptors.
Gramatica P; Consonni V; Pavan M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Aug; 14(4):237-50. PubMed ID: 14506868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Searching for an enhanced predictive tool for mutagenicity.
Klopman G; Zhu H; Fuller MA; Saiakhov RD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2004 Aug; 15(4):251-63. PubMed ID: 15370416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
