↓ Skip to main content

Computational Toxicology

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Computational Toxicology'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Molecular Descriptors for Structure–Activity Applications: A Hands-On Approach
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 The OECD QSAR Toolbox Starts Its Second Decade
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 QSAR: What Else?
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 (Q)SARs as Adaptations to REACH Information Requirements
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Machine Learning Methods in Computational Toxicology
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Applicability Domain: A Step Toward Confident Predictions and Decidability for QSAR Modeling
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Molecular Similarity in Computational Toxicology
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Molecular Docking for Predictive Toxicology
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Criteria and Application on the Use of Nontesting Methods within a Weight of Evidence Strategy
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Characterization and Management of Uncertainties in Toxicological Risk Assessment: Examples from the Opinions of the European Food Safety Authority
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Computational Toxicology and Drug Discovery
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Approaching Pharmacological Space: Events and Components
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Computational Toxicology Methods in Chemical Library Design and High-Throughput Screening Hit Validation
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Enalos Suite: New Cheminformatics Platform for Drug Discovery and Computational Toxicology
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Ion Channels in Drug Discovery and Safety Pharmacology
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Computational Approaches in Multitarget Drug Discovery
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Nanoformulations for Drug Delivery: Safety, Toxicity, and Efficacy
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Toxicity Potential of Nutraceuticals
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Impact of Pharmaceuticals on the Environment: Risk Assessment Using QSAR Modeling Approach
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 (Q)SAR Methods for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity: Scientific Rationale and Regulatory Frameworks
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Stem Cell-Based Methods to Predict Developmental Chemical Toxicity
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Predicting Chemically Induced Skin Sensitization by Using In Chemico / In Vitro Methods
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 Hepatotoxicity Prediction by Systems Biology Modeling of Disturbed Metabolic Pathways Using Gene Expression Data
  25. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 24 Nontest Methods to Predict Acute Toxicity: State of the Art for Applications of In Silico Methods
  26. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 25 Predictive Systems Toxicology
  27. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 26 Chemoinformatic Approach to Assess Toxicity of Ionic Liquids
  28. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 27 Prediction of Biochemical Endpoints by the CORAL Software: Prejudices, Paradoxes, and Results
Attention for Chapter 21: Stem Cell-Based Methods to Predict Developmental Chemical Toxicity
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Stem Cell-Based Methods to Predict Developmental Chemical Toxicity
Chapter number 21
Book title
Computational Toxicology
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7899-1_21
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7898-4, 978-1-4939-7899-1
Authors

Hiroki Takahashi, Xian-Yang Qin, Hideko Sone, Wataru Fujibuchi, Takahashi, Hiroki, Qin, Xian-Yang, Sone, Hideko, Fujibuchi, Wataru

Abstract

Human pluripotent stem cells such as embryonic stem (ES) and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, combined with sophisticated bioinformatics methods, are powerful tools to predict developmental chemical toxicity. Because cell differentiation is not necessary, these cells can facilitate cost-effective assays, thus providing a practical system for the toxicity assessment of various types of chemicals. Here we describe how to apply machine learning techniques to different types of data, such as qRT-PCRs, gene networks, and molecular descriptors, for toxic chemicals, as well as how to integrate these data to predict toxicity categories. Interestingly, our results using 20 chemical data for neurotoxins (NTs), genotoxic carcinogens (GCs), and nongenotoxic carcinogens (NGCs) demonstrated that the highest and most robust prediction performance was obtained by using gene networks as the input. We also observed that qRT-PCR and molecular descriptors tend to contribute to specific toxicity categories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,410
of 13,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,127
of 442,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#596
of 1,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,207 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,499 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.