Evaluation of toxic endpoints for a set of cosmetic ingredients with CAESAR models

Plošnik, Alja; Zupan, Jure; Vračko, Marjan

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.013

Cited by 12 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Models for predicting mutagenicity are based on a set of 4225 molecules tested with the Ames bacterial test. Models for carcinogenicity were built on a set of 805 chemicals from the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDBAS) (58). CAESAR meets all five principles of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).…”

Section: Vega Platform and Caesarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutagenic and carcinogenic structural alerts and their mechanisms of action

Plošnik

Vračko

Dolenc

2016

Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing the mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of chemicals is very important for their hazard (and risk) assessment. One of the crucial events that trigger genotoxic and sometimes carcinogenic effects is the forming of adducts between chemical compounds and nucleic acids and histones. This review takes a look at the mechanisms related to specific functional groups (structural alerts or toxicophores) that may trigger genotoxic or epigenetic effects in the cells. We present up-to-date information about defined structural alerts with their mechanisms and the software based on this knowledge (QSAR models and classification schemes).

show abstract

Section: Vega Platform and Caesarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutagenic and carcinogenic structural alerts and their mechanisms of action

Plošnik

Vračko

Dolenc

2016

Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Collaborative Approaches to Advance Chemical Safety

Judson¹

2018

Handbook of Green Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sections in this article are Introduction Incentives for Collaboration and Constraints Options for Sharing Sharing Research Sharing Knowledge Sharing Data Sharing Software Development The Implementation of Collaborative Organizations Collaborative Projects British Industrial Biological Research Association ( BIBRA ) The Chemical Bioactivity Information Centre ( CBIC ) The Distributed Structure‐Searchable Toxicity Database Network – DSSTox ICH Innovative Medicines Initiative ( IMI ) CHEM 21 Electronic Health Record for Clinical Research ( EHR 4 CR ) eTOX GETREAL iPiE MARCAR MIP ‐ DILI International Life Sciences Institute ( ILSI ) and ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute ( HESI ) Lhasa Limited OECD ( Q ) SAR Toolbox OpenTox PhUSE The Pistoia Alliance REACH Substance Information Exchange Forums ( SIEF ) SEURAT ‐1 (Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing) COSMOS DETECTIVE HeMiBio NOTOX SCR &Tox ToxBank ToxML The Traditional Chinese Medicine Database United Nations – the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road ( ADR ) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals ( GHS ) US Government–Industry Collaborations VEGA Yale University Open Data Access ( YODA ) Conclusions

show abstract