124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38492856)
21. 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]
22. Merging applicability domains for in silico assessment of chemical mutagenicity.
Liu R; Wallqvist A
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Mar; 54(3):793-800. PubMed ID: 24494696
[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. 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. 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. Prioritization of mycotoxins based on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity evaluation using combined in silico QSAR methods.
Lemée P; Fessard V; Habauzit D
Environ Pollut; 2023 Apr; 323():121284. PubMed ID: 36804886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set.
Sushko I; Novotarskyi S; Körner R; Pandey AK; Cherkasov A; Li J; Gramatica P; Hansen K; Schroeter T; Müller KR; Xi L; Liu H; Yao X; Öberg T; Hormozdiari F; Dao P; Sahinalp C; Todeschini R; Polishchuk P; Artemenko A; Kuz'min V; Martin TM; Young DM; Fourches D; Muratov E; Tropsha A; Baskin I; Horvath D; Marcou G; Muller C; Varnek A; Prokopenko VV; Tetko IV
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2094-111. PubMed ID: 21033656
[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. Use of in silico models for prioritization of heat-induced food contaminants in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity testing.
Frenzel F; Buhrke T; Wenzel I; Andrack J; Hielscher J; Lampen A
Arch Toxicol; 2017 Sep; 91(9):3157-3174. PubMed ID: 28091709
[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. DeepAmes: A deep learning-powered Ames test predictive model with potential for regulatory application.
Li T; Liu Z; Thakkar S; Roberts R; Tong W
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2023 Oct; 144():105486. PubMed ID: 37633327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Suitability of the Ames test to characterise genotoxicity of food contact material migrates.
Rainer B; Pinter E; Czerny T; Riegel E; Kirchnawy C; Marin-Kuan M; Schilter B; Tacker M
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess; 2018 Nov; 35(11):2230-2243. PubMed ID: 30257137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Integrated strategy for mutagenicity prediction applied to food contact chemicals.
Manganelli S; Schilter B; Benfenati E; Manganaro A; Lo Piparo E
ALTEX; 2018; 35(2):169-178. PubMed ID: 28922667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Resolution of contradiction between in silico predictions and Ames test results for four pharmaceutically relevant impurities.
Gunther WC; Kenyon MO; Cheung JR; Dugger RW; Dobo KL
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Dec; 91():68-76. PubMed ID: 29061373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Performance of In Silico Models for Mutagenicity Prediction of Food Contact Materials.
Van Bossuyt M; Van Hoeck E; Raitano G; Vanhaecke T; Benfenati E; Mertens B; Rogiers V
Toxicol Sci; 2018 Jun; 163(2):632-638. PubMed ID: 29579255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Characterization and validation of an in silico toxicology model to predict the mutagenic potential of drug impurities.
Valerio LG; Cross KP
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2012 May; 260(3):209-21. PubMed ID: 22426359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Applicability of in silico genotoxicity models on food and feed ingredients.
Vuorinen A; Bellion P; Beilstein P
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2017 Nov; 90():277-288. PubMed ID: 28964846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Characterization of a new polymeric food contact coating with emphasis on the chemical analysis and safety assessment of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS).
Mallen TR; Abston KD; Parizek NJ; Negley J; Shores KS; Canatsey RD; Dubail S; Maier MS; Maffini MV
Food Chem Toxicol; 2023 Mar; 173():113635. PubMed ID: 36717016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
