149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36563927)
21. Evaluation of QSAR models for predicting mutagenicity: outcome of the Second Ames/QSAR international challenge project.
Furuhama A; Kitazawa A; Yao J; Matos Dos Santos CE; Rathman J; Yang C; Ribeiro JV; Cross K; Myatt G; Raitano G; Benfenati E; Jeliazkova N; Saiakhov R; Chakravarti S; Foster RS; Bossa C; Battistelli CL; Benigni R; Sawada T; Wasada H; Hashimoto T; Wu M; Barzilay R; Daga PR; Clark RD; Mestres J; Montero A; Gregori-Puigjané E; Petkov P; Ivanova H; Mekenyan O; Matthews S; Guan D; Spicer J; Lui R; Uesawa Y; Kurosaki K; Matsuzaka Y; Sasaki S; Cronin MTD; Belfield SJ; Firman JW; Spînu N; Qiu M; Keca JM; Gini G; Li T; Tong W; Hong H; Liu Z; Igarashi Y; Yamada H; Sugiyama KI; Honma M
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2023; 34(12):983-1001. PubMed ID: 38047445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Computing similarity between structural environments of mutagenicity alerts.
Chakravarti SK; Saiakhov RD
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):55-65. PubMed ID: 30346583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Construction and application of (Q)SAR models to predict chemical-induced in vitro chromosome aberrations.
Hsu CW; Hewes KP; Stavitskaya L; Kruhlak NL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2018 Nov; 99():274-288. PubMed ID: 30278198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. In Silico Prediction of Chemically Induced Mutagenicity: How to Use QSAR Models and Interpret Their Results.
Mombelli E; Raitano G; Benfenati E
Methods Mol Biol; 2016; 1425():87-105. PubMed ID: 27311463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Prediction of Salmonella mutagenicity.
Zeiger E; Ashby J; Bakale G; Enslein K; Klopman G; Rosenkranz HS
Mutagenesis; 1996 Sep; 11(5):471-84. PubMed ID: 8921509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model.
Serafimova R; Todorov M; Pavlov T; Kotov S; Jacob E; Aptula A; Mekenyan O
Chem Res Toxicol; 2007 Apr; 20(4):662-76. PubMed ID: 17381132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. In-silico screening of high production volume chemicals for mutagenicity using the MCASE QSAR expert system.
Klopman G; Chakravarti SK; Harris N; Ivanov J; Saiakhov RD
SAR QSAR Environ Res; 2003 Apr; 14(2):165-80. PubMed ID: 12747573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. From Structural Alerts to Signature Fragment Alerts: A Case Study on Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids.
Lo Piparo E; Christinat N; Badoud F
Chem Res Toxicol; 2023 Feb; 36(2):213-229. PubMed ID: 36692496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. QSAR models to predict mutagenicity of acrylates, methacrylates and alpha,beta-unsaturated carbonyl compounds.
Pérez-Garrido A; Helguera AM; Rodríguez FG; Cordeiro MN
Dent Mater; 2010 May; 26(5):397-415. PubMed ID: 20122717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Relationships between chemical structures and mutagenicity: a preliminary survey for a database of mutagenicity test results of new work place chemicals.
Sawatari K; Nakanishi Y; Matsushima T
Ind Health; 2001 Oct; 39(4):341-5. PubMed ID: 11758998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Rule extraction from a mutagenicity data set using adaptively grown phylogenetic-like trees.
Bacha PA; Gruver HS; Den Hartog BK; Tamura SY; Nutt RF
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2002; 42(5):1104-11. PubMed ID: 12376997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Predicting Ames Mutagenicity Using Conformal Prediction in the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.
Norinder U; Ahlberg E; Carlsson L
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 30541036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Approaches to SAR in carcinogenesis and mutagenesis. Prediction of carcinogenicity/mutagenicity using MULTI-CASE.
Klopman G; Rosenkranz HS
Mutat Res; 1994 Feb; 305(1):33-46. PubMed ID: 7508546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Extrapolation of in vitro structural alerts for mutagenicity to the in vivo endpoint.
Tennant RE; Guesné SJ; Canipa S; Cayley A; Drewe WC; Honma M; Masumura K; Morita T; Stalford SA; Williams RV
Mutagenesis; 2019 Mar; 34(1):111-121. PubMed ID: 30281100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
