These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34078212)

  • 21. Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity.
    Petkov PI; Schultz TW; Donner EM; Honma M; Morita T; Hamada S; Wakata A; Mishima M; Maniwa J; Todorov M; Kaloyanova E; Kotov S; Mekenyan OG
    J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 36(12):1536-1550. PubMed ID: 27225589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. (Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission.
    Powley MW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Mar; 71(2):295-300. PubMed ID: 25545315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. In silico assessment of chemical mutagenesis in comparison with results of Salmonella microsome assay on 909 chemicals.
    Hayashi M; Kamata E; Hirose A; Takahashi M; Morita T; Ema M
    Mutat Res; 2005 Dec; 588(2):129-35. PubMed ID: 16257575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. ToxRead: a tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals.
    Gini G; Franchi AM; Manganaro A; Golbamaki A; Benfenati E
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2014; 25(12):999-1011. PubMed ID: 25511972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. In vitro genotoxicity testing-Can the performance be enhanced?
    Corvi R; Madia F
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2017 Aug; 106(Pt B):600-608. PubMed ID: 27554597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. (Q)SAR tools for the prediction of mutagenic properties: Are they ready for application in pesticide regulation?
    Herrmann K; Holzwarth A; Rime S; Fischer BC; Kneuer C
    Pest Manag Sci; 2020 Oct; 76(10):3316-3325. PubMed ID: 32223060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis.
    Pfuhler S; Kirst A; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Goebel C; Araki D; Costabel-Farkas M; Dufour E; Fautz R; Harvey J; Hewitt NJ; Hibatallah J; Carmichael P; Macfarlane M; Reisinger K; Rowland J; Schellauf F; Schepky A; Scheel J
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2010; 57(2-3):315-24. PubMed ID: 20382194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules.
    Snyder RD; Pearl GS; Mandakas G; Choy WN; Goodsaid F; Rosenblum IY
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2004; 43(3):143-58. PubMed ID: 15065202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade.
    Turkez H; Arslan ME; Ozdemir O
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2017 Oct; 13(10):1089-1098. PubMed ID: 28889778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities.
    Fioravanzo E; Bassan A; Pavan M; Mostrag-Szlichtyng A; Worth AP
    SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2012; 23(3-4):257-77. PubMed ID: 22369620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A decision tree-based integrated testing strategy for tailor-made carcinogenicity evaluation of test substances using genotoxicity test results and chemical spaces.
    Fujita Y; Honda H; Yamane M; Morita T; Matsuda T; Morita O
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):101-109. PubMed ID: 30551173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Principles and procedures for implementation of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses.
    Amberg A; Beilke L; Bercu J; Bower D; Brigo A; Cross KP; Custer L; Dobo K; Dowdy E; Ford KA; Glowienke S; Van Gompel J; Harvey J; Hasselgren C; Honma M; Jolly R; Kemper R; Kenyon M; Kruhlak N; Leavitt P; Miller S; Muster W; Nicolette J; Plaper A; Powley M; Quigley DP; Reddy MV; Spirkl HP; Stavitskaya L; Teasdale A; Weiner S; Welch DS; White A; Wichard J; Myatt GJ
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 77():13-24. PubMed ID: 26877192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results.
    Kirkland DJ; Aardema M; Banduhn N; Carmichael P; Fautz R; Meunier JR; Pfuhler S
    Mutagenesis; 2007 May; 22(3):161-75. PubMed ID: 17369606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. QSAR and metabolic assessment tools in the assessment of genotoxicity.
    Worth AP; Lapenna S; Serafimova R
    Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 930():125-62. PubMed ID: 23086840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing.
    Thybaud V; Aardema M; Clements J; Dearfield K; Galloway S; Hayashi M; Jacobson-Kram D; Kirkland D; MacGregor JT; Marzin D; Ohyama W; Schuler M; Suzuki H; Zeiger E;
    Mutat Res; 2007 Feb; 627(1):41-58. PubMed ID: 17126066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. FAIRification of nanosafety data to improve applicability of (Q)SAR approaches: A case study on
    Bossa C; Andreoli C; Bakker M; Barone F; De Angelis I; Jeliazkova N; Nymark P; Battistelli CL
    Comput Toxicol; 2021 Nov; 20():100190. PubMed ID: 34820591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A practice of expert review by read-across using QSAR Toolbox.
    Fukuchi J; Kitazawa A; Hirabayashi K; Honma M
    Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 30690463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.