Commercial toxicology prediction systems: A regulatory perspective

Toxicology Letters

Volumn 102-103, Issue , 1998, Pages 611-616

  Richard, Ann M ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

CASE; Commercial prediction systems; DEREK; Disinfection byproducts; MultiCASE; ONCOLOGIC; SAR; TOPKAT; Toxicity prediction

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNIQUE; TOXICOLOGY;

DISINFECTION; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICOLOGY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 0032435458     PISSN: 03784274     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4274(98)00257-4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Anonymous, 1998. Government concentrates. Chem. Eng. News, May 11, 21; ibid, Federal Register, May 4, 25595.
2. Anonymous, 1998. Government concentrates. Chem. Eng. News, May 11, 21; ibid, Federal Register, May 4, 25595.
3. Barratt, M.D., 1998. Integration of QSAR and in vitro toxicology. Environ. Health Perspect. 106, 459-465.
4. Basketter, D.A., Scholes, E.W., Chamberlain, M., Barratt, M.D., 1995. An alternative strategy to the use of guinea pigs for the identification of skin sensitization hazard. Food Chem. Toxciol. 33, 1051-1056.
5. Benfenati, E., Gini, G., 1997. Computational predictive programs (expert systems) in toxicology. Toxicology 119, 213-225.
6. Benigni, R., Richard, A.M., 1998. Quantitative structure-based modeling applied to the characterization and prediction of chemical toxicity. Meth.: Compan. Meth. Enzymol. 14, 264-276.
7. Dearden, J.C., Barratt, M.D., Benigni, R., et al., 1997. The Development and Validation of Expert Systems for Predicting Toxicity. The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM/ECB Workshop 24. ATLA 25, 223-252.
8. Enslein, K., Gombar, V.K., Blake, B.W., 1994. Use of SAR in computer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. Mutat. Res. 305, 47-61.
9. Klopman, G., 1984. Computer automated structure evaluation of organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106, 7315-7324.
10. Klopman, G., 1992. MULTI-CASE 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant. Struct. Act. Rel. 11, 176-184.
11. Lai, D., Woo, Y.-T., Argus, M.F., Argus, J.C., 1996. Carcinogenic potential or organic peroxides: Prediction based on structure-activity relationships (SAR) and mechanism-based short-term tests. Environ. Carcinog. Ecotox. Revs. C14, 63-80.
12. Richard, A.M., 1998. Structure-based methods for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity: Are we there yet? Mutat. Res. 400, 493-507.
13. Sanderson, D.M., Earnshaw, C.G., 1991. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10, 261-273.
14. Wagner, P.M., Nabholz, J.V., Kent, R.J., 1995. The new chemicals process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Structure-activity relationships for hazard identification and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 79, 67-73.
15. Woo, Y.-T., Lai, D., Argus, M., Arcos, J., 1995. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 79, 219-228.
16. Woo, Y.-T, Lai, D., McLain, J., Manibusan, M., Dellarco, V., Cox, M., 1998. Structural activity relationship analysis of drinking water disinfection byproducts for potential carcinogenicity, manuscript in preparation.