198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34078212)
1. 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]
2.
Benigni R; Bassan A; Pavan M
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2020 Aug; 16(8):651-662. PubMed ID: 32567390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across: An EFSA funded project.
Benigni R; Serafimova R; Parra Morte JM; Battistelli CL; Bossa C; Giuliani A; Fioravanzo E; Bassan A; Gatnik MF; Rathman J; Yang C; Mostrag-Szlichtyng A; Sacher O; Tcheremenskaia O
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Jul; 114():104658. PubMed ID: 32334037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. (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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. In silico assessment of genotoxicity. Combinations of sensitive structural alerts minimize false negative predictions for all genotoxicity endpoints and can single out chemicals for which experimentation can be avoided.
Benigni R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Nov; 126():105042. PubMed ID: 34506881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. How to assess the mutagenic potential of cosmetic products without animal tests?
Speit G
Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):108-12. PubMed ID: 19379833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: A Weight of Evidence Approach Integrating Information from QSAR Models and Read-Across Predictions.
Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2425():149-183. PubMed ID: 35188632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of In Silico Methods for Regulatory Toxicological Assessment of Pharmaceutical Impurities.
Kovarich S; Cappelli CI
Methods Mol Biol; 2022; 2425():537-560. PubMed ID: 35188646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Latest advances in computational genotoxicity prediction.
Naven RT; Greene N; Williams RV
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Dec; 8(12):1579-87. PubMed ID: 22998164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
