BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35313995)

  • 1. A local QSAR model based on the stability of nitrenium ions to support the ICH M7 expert review on the mutagenicity of primary aromatic amines.
    Furukawa A; Ono S; Yamada K; Torimoto N; Asayama M; Muto S
    Genes Environ; 2022 Mar; 44(1):10. PubMed ID: 35313995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. An in silico method for predicting Ames activities of primary aromatic amines by calculating the stabilities of nitrenium ions.
    Bentzien J; Hickey ER; Kemper RA; Brewer ML; Dyekjaer JD; East SP; Whittaker M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Feb; 50(2):274-97. PubMed ID: 20078034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantitative structure-activity (QSAR) relationships of mutagenic aromatic and heterocyclic amines.
    Hatch FT; Colvin ME
    Mutat Res; 1997 May; 376(1-2):87-96. PubMed ID: 9202742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Quantitative structure-activity relationships of mutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic azides and amines.
    Sabbioni G; Wild D
    Carcinogenesis; 1992 Apr; 13(4):709-13. PubMed ID: 1576721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mechanistic Reactivity Descriptors for the Prediction of Ames Mutagenicity of Primary Aromatic Amines.
    Kuhnke L; Ter Laak A; Göller AH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Feb; 59(2):668-672. PubMed ID: 30694664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Ultimate carcinogenic metabolites from aromatic and heterocyclic aromatic amines: a computational study in relation to their mutagenic potency.
    Borosky GL
    Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Feb; 20(2):171-80. PubMed ID: 17261035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the impact of expert knowledge on ICH M7 (Q)SAR predictions. Is expert review still needed?
    Jayasekara PS; Skanchy SK; Kim MT; Kumaran G; Mugabe BE; Woodard LE; Yang J; Zych AJ; Kruhlak NL
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2021 Oct; 125():105006. PubMed ID: 34273441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mechanistic QSAR of aromatic amines: new models for discriminating between homocyclic mutagens and nonmutagens, and validation of models for carcinogens.
    Benigni R; Bossa C; Netzeva T; Rodomonte A; Tsakovska I
    Environ Mol Mutagen; 2007 Dec; 48(9):754-71. PubMed ID: 18008355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Consultancy Activity on In Silico Models for Genotoxic Prediction of Pharmaceutical Impurities.
    Pavan M; Kovarich S; Bassan A; Broccardo L; Yang C; Fioravanzo E
    Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():511-29. PubMed ID: 27311479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Assessing the utility of common arguments used in expert review of in silico predictions as part of ICH M7 assessments.
    Cayley AN; Foster RS; Brigo A; Muster W; Musso A; Kenyon MO; Parris P; White AT; Cohen-Ohana M; Nudelman R; Glowienke S
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2023 Oct; 144():105490. PubMed ID: 37659712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.