BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33292765)

  • 1. Screening for Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
    Honma M; Kitazawa A; Kasamatsu T; Sugiyama KI
    Genes Environ; 2020 Nov; 42(1):32. PubMed ID: 33292765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship.
    Honma M
    Genes Environ; 2020; 42():23. PubMed ID: 32626544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of a new quantitative structure-activity relationship model for predicting Ames mutagenicity of food flavor chemicals using StarDrop™ auto-Modeller™.
    Kasamatsu T; Kitazawa A; Tajima S; Kaneko M; Sugiyama KI; Yamada M; Yasui M; Masumura K; Horibata K; Honma M
    Genes Environ; 2021 Apr; 43(1):16. PubMed ID: 33931133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Validation of the (Q)SAR combination approach for mutagenicity prediction of flavor chemicals.
    Ono A; Takahashi M; Hirose A; Kamata E; Kawamura T; Yamazaki T; Sato K; Yamada M; Fukumoto T; Okamura H; Mirokuji Y; Honma M
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2012 May; 50(5):1538-46. PubMed ID: 22369964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. (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]  

  • 9. Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure.
    Araya S; Lovsin-Barle E; Glowienke S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Nov; 73(2):515-20. PubMed ID: 26454093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive Estimate of Risk from Existing Knowledge. Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology.
    Cariello NF; Wilson JD; Britt BH; Wedd DJ; Burlinson B; Gombar V
    Mutagenesis; 2002 Jul; 17(4):321-9. PubMed ID: 12110629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds.
    Kulkarni SA; Barton-Maclaren TS
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2014; 32(1):46-82. PubMed ID: 24598040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In silico exploratory study using structure-activity relationship models and metabolic information for prediction of mutagenicity based on the Ames test and rodent micronucleus assay.
    Kamath P; Raitano G; Fernández A; Rallo R; Benfenati E
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2015 Dec; 26(12):1017-1031. PubMed ID: 26565432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Use of (Q)SAR genotoxicity predictions and fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for priority ranking of ethoxyquin transformation products.
    Rasinger JD; Frenzel F; Braeuning A; Bernhard A; Ørnsrud R; Merel S; Berntssen MHG
    Environ Int; 2022 Jan; 158():106875. PubMed ID: 34607038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The importance of expert review to clarify ambiguous situations for (Q)SAR predictions under ICH M7.
    Foster RS; Fowkes A; Cayley A; Thresher A; Werner AD; Barber CG; Kocks G; Tennant RE; Williams RV; Kane S; Stalford SA
    Genes Environ; 2020; 42():27. PubMed ID: 32983286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.