186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31336127)
1. Integrated in silico and in vitro genotoxicity assessment of thirteen data-poor substances.
Tran YK; Buick JK; Keir JLA; Williams A; Swartz CD; Recio L; White PA; Lambert IB; Yauk CL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Oct; 107():104427. PubMed ID: 31336127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. Application of the TGx-28.65 transcriptomic biomarker to classify genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells in the presence of rat liver S9.
Yauk CL; Buick JK; Williams A; Swartz CD; Recio L; Li HH; Fornace AJ; Thomson EM; Aubrecht J
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2016 May; 57(4):243-60. PubMed ID: 26946220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The utility of metabolic activation mixtures containing human hepatic post-mitochondrial supernatant (S9) for in vitro genetic toxicity assessment.
Cox JA; Fellows MD; Hashizume T; White PA
Mutagenesis; 2016 Mar; 31(2):117-30. PubMed ID: 26712374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: How to Use QSAR Models and Interpret Their Results.
Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():87-105. PubMed ID: 27311463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Hydromorphone impurity 2,2-bishydromorphone does not exert mutagenic and clastogenic properties via
Franckenstein D; Bothe MK; Hurtado SB; Westphal M
Drug Chem Toxicol; 2023 Nov; 46(4):634-639. PubMed ID: 35603474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SOS chromotest results in a broader context: empirical relationships between genotoxic potency, mutagenic potency, and carcinogenic potency.
White PA; Rasmussen JB
Environ Mol Mutagen; 1996; 27(4):270-305. PubMed ID: 8665872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The preparation of anthraquinone used in the National Toxicology Program cancer bioassay was contaminated with the mutagen 9-nitroanthracene.
Butterworth BE; Mathre OB; Ballinger K
Mutagenesis; 2001 Mar; 16(2):169-77. PubMed ID: 11230561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Follow-up genotoxicity assessment of Ames-positive/equivocal chemicals using the improved thymidine kinase gene mutation assay in DNA repair-deficient human TK6 cells.
Sassa A; Fukuda T; Ukai A; Nakamura M; Sato R; Fujiwara S; Hirota K; Takeda S; Sugiyama KI; Honma M; Yasui M
Mutagenesis; 2021 Oct; 36(5):331-338. PubMed ID: 34216473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Integrated approach to assess the domain of applicability of some commercial (Q)SAR models.
Kulkarni SA; Zhu J
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2008; 19(1-2):39-54. PubMed ID: 18311633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Identifying the structural requirements for chromosomal aberration by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals.
Mekenyan O; Todorov M; Serafimova R; Stoeva S; Aptula A; Finking R; Jacob E
Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Dec; 20(12):1927-41. PubMed ID: 18052113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Toward regulatory acceptance and improving the prediction confidence of in silico approaches: a case study of genotoxicity.
Tcheremenskaia O; Benigni R
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2021 Aug; 17(8):987-1005. PubMed ID: 34078212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Investigating the relationship between in vitro-in vivo genotoxicity: derivation of mechanistic QSAR models for in vivo liver genotoxicity and in vivo bone marrow micronucleus formation which encompass metabolism.
Mekenyan OG; Petkov PI; Kotov SV; Stoeva S; Kamenska VB; Dimitrov SD; Honma M; Hayashi M; Benigni R; Donner EM; Patlewicz G
Chem Res Toxicol; 2012 Feb; 25(2):277-96. PubMed ID: 22196229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Multiple Instance Learning Improves Ames Mutagenicity Prediction for Problematic Molecular Species.
Feeney SV; Lui R; Guan D; Matthews S
Chem Res Toxicol; 2023 Aug; 36(8):1227-1237. PubMed ID: 37477941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
