154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34273441)
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. Potentially mutagenic impurities: analysis of structural classes and carcinogenic potencies of chemical intermediates in pharmaceutical syntheses supports alternative methods to the default TTC for calculating safe levels of impurities.
Galloway SM; Vijayaraj Reddy M; McGettigan K; Gealy R; Bercu J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2013 Aug; 66(3):326-35. PubMed ID: 23688841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. 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]
45. In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey.
Dobo KL; Greene N; Fred C; Glowienke S; Harvey JS; Hasselgren C; Jolly R; Kenyon MO; Munzner JB; Muster W; Neft R; Reddy MV; White AT; Weiner S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2012 Apr; 62(3):449-55. PubMed ID: 22321701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Managing emerging mutagenicity risks: Late stage mutagenic impurity control within the atovaquone second generation synthesis.
Urquhart MWJ; Bardsley B; Edwards AJ; Giddings A; Griva E; Harvey J; Hermitage S; King F; Leach S; Lesurf C; McKinlay C; Oxley P; Pham TN; Simpson A; Smith E; Stevenson N; Wade C; White A; Wooster N
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():22-32. PubMed ID: 30118726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. (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]
48. Retrospective application of ICH M7 to anti-hypertensive drugs in Brazil: Risk assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities.
Waechter F; Falcao Oliveira AA; Borges Shimada AL; Bernes Junior E; de Souza Nascimento E
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2024 Jun; 151():105669. PubMed ID: 38936796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 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]
50. 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]
51. A knowledge-based expert rule system for predicting mutagenicity (Ames test) of aromatic amines and azo compounds.
Gadaleta D; Manganelli S; Manganaro A; Porta N; Benfenati E
Toxicology; 2016 Aug; 370():20-30. PubMed ID: 27644887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. (Q)SARs: gatekeepers against risk on chemicals?
Hulzebos EM; Posthumus R
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Aug; 14(4):285-316. PubMed ID: 14506871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines.
Devillers J; Mombelli E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2010 Oct; 21(7-8):753-69. PubMed ID: 21120760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. Mutagenic potential and structural alerts of phytotoxins.
Bassan A; Pavan M; Lo Piparo E
Food Chem Toxicol; 2023 Mar; 173():113562. PubMed ID: 36563927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. International regulatory requirements for genotoxicity testing for pharmaceuticals used in human medicine, and their impurities and metabolites.
Galloway SM
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2017 Jun; 58(5):296-324. PubMed ID: 28299826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Peptide bond-forming reagents HOAt and HATU are not mutagenic in the bacterial reverse mutation test.
Nicolette J; Neft RE; Vanosdol J; Murray J
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2016 Apr; 57(3):236-40. PubMed ID: 26840011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Application of SAR methods to non-congeneric data bases associated with carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: issues and approaches.
Richard AM
Mutat Res; 1994 Feb; 305(1):73-97. PubMed ID: 7508549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations.
Hillebrecht A; Muster W; Brigo A; Kansy M; Weiser T; Singer T
Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jun; 24(6):843-54. PubMed ID: 21534561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems.
Hulzebos E; Sijm D; Traas T; Posthumus R; Maslankiewicz L
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2005 Aug; 16(4):385-401. PubMed ID: 16234178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
