133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36066065)
21. Determination of a positive response in the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay.
Zeiger E
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2023 Apr; 64(4):250-258. PubMed ID: 36916210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Mutagenicity of white grape juice in the Ames test.
Patrineli A; Clifford MN; Walker R; Ioannides C
Food Chem Toxicol; 1996 Jun; 34(6):559-62. PubMed ID: 8690316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity
Benfenati E; Golbamaki A; Raitano G; Roncaglioni A; Manganelli S; Lemke F; Norinder U; Lo Piparo E; Honma M; Manganaro A; Gini G
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):591-611. PubMed ID: 30052064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.
Kamber M; Flückiger-Isler S; Engelhardt G; Jaeckh R; Zeiger E
Mutagenesis; 2009 Jul; 24(4):359-66. PubMed ID: 19447896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Optimizing machine-learning models for mutagenicity prediction through better feature selection.
Shinada NK; Koyama N; Ikemori M; Nishioka T; Hitaoka S; Hakura A; Asakura S; Matsuoka Y; Palaniappan SK
Mutagenesis; 2022 Oct; 37(3-4):191-202. PubMed ID: 35554560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A promising Ames battery for mutagenicity characterization of new dyes.
Umbuzeiro GA; Morales DA; Vacchi FI; Albuquerque AF; Szymczyk M; Sui X; Vinueza N; Freeman HS
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2021 Jan; 62(1):52-65. PubMed ID: 33252143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Optimization of the Ames RAMOS test allows for a reproducible high-throughput mutagenicity test.
Kauffmann K; Werner F; Deitert A; Finklenburg J; Brendt J; Schiwy A; Hollert H; Büchs J
Sci Total Environ; 2020 May; 717():137168. PubMed ID: 32084684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. The dosing determines mutagenicity of hydrophobic compounds in the Ames II assay with metabolic transformation: passive dosing versus solvent spiking.
Smith KE; Heringa MB; Uytewaal M; Mayer P
Mutat Res; 2013 Jan; 750(1-2):12-8. PubMed ID: 22989744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Mutagenicity of Chinese traditional medicine Semen Armeniacae amarum by two modified Ames tests.
Jin J; Liu B; Zhang H; Tian X; Cai Y; Gao P
BMC Complement Altern Med; 2009 Nov; 9():43. PubMed ID: 19912670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Mutagenicity Evaluation of Nanoparticles by the Ames Assay.
Pan X
Methods Mol Biol; 2021; 2326():275-285. PubMed ID: 34097276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Quantifying the toxic and mutagenic activity of complex mixtures with Salmonella typhimurium.
Somani SM; Schaeffer DJ; Mack JO
J Toxicol Environ Health; 1981; 7(3-4):643-53. PubMed ID: 7026798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Could deep learning in neural networks improve the QSAR models?
Gini G; Zanoli F; Gamba A; Raitano G; Benfenati E
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2019 Sep; 30(9):617-642. PubMed ID: 31460798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay.
Mortelmans K; Zeiger E
Mutat Res; 2000 Nov; 455(1-2):29-60. PubMed ID: 11113466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities.
Valencia A; Prous J; Mora O; Sadrieh N; Valerio LG
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2013 Dec; 273(3):427-34. PubMed ID: 24090816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Using Transition State Modeling To Predict Mutagenicity for Michael Acceptors.
Allen TEH; Grayson MN; Goodman JM; Gutsell S; Russell PJ
J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jun; 58(6):1266-1271. PubMed ID: 29847119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
