These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11123984)

  • 1. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations.
    Bissantz C; Folkers G; Rognan D
    J Med Chem; 2000 Dec; 43(25):4759-67. PubMed ID: 11123984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening.
    Yang JM; Chen YF; Shen TW; Kristal BS; Hsu DF
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1134-46. PubMed ID: 16045308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex.
    Miteva MA; Lee WH; Montes MO; Villoutreix BO
    J Med Chem; 2005 Sep; 48(19):6012-22. PubMed ID: 16162004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-Protein Coupled Receptors suitable targets?
    Bissantz C; Bernard P; Hibert M; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2003 Jan; 50(1):5-25. PubMed ID: 12471595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening.
    Kontoyianni M; Sokol GS; McClellan LM
    J Comput Chem; 2005 Jan; 26(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 15526325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.
    Kellenberger E; Rodrigo J; Muller P; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2004 Nov; 57(2):225-42. PubMed ID: 15340911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking.
    de Graaf C; Oostenbrink C; Keizers PH; van der Wijst T; Jongejan A; Vermeulen NP
    J Med Chem; 2006 Apr; 49(8):2417-30. PubMed ID: 16610785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Considerations in compound database preparation--"hidden" impact on virtual screening results.
    Knox AJ; Meegan MJ; Carta G; Lloyd DG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1908-19. PubMed ID: 16309298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A pharmacophore-based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators.
    Yang JM; Shen TW
    Proteins; 2005 May; 59(2):205-20. PubMed ID: 15726586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Scoring functions and enrichment: a case study on Hsp90.
    Konstantinou-Kirtay C; Mitchell JB; Lumley JA
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2007 Jan; 8():27. PubMed ID: 17257425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking.
    Bursulaya BD; Totrov M; Abagyan R; Brooks CL
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2003 Nov; 17(11):755-63. PubMed ID: 15072435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation and application of multiple scoring functions for a virtual screening experiment.
    Xing L; Hodgkin E; Liu Q; Sedlock D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2004 May; 18(5):333-44. PubMed ID: 15595460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
    Huang N; Shoichet BK; Irwin JJ
    J Med Chem; 2006 Nov; 49(23):6789-801. PubMed ID: 17154509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.
    Kontoyianni M; McClellan LM; Sokol GS
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(3):558-65. PubMed ID: 14736237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Benchmarking docking and scoring protocol for the identification of potential acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
    Zaheer-ul-Haq ; Halim SA; Uddin R; Madura JD
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Jun; 28(8):870-82. PubMed ID: 20447848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.
    Xu W; Lucke AJ; Fairlie DP
    J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Apr; 57():76-88. PubMed ID: 25682361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cheminformatics meets molecular mechanics: a combined application of knowledge-based pose scoring and physical force field-based hit scoring functions improves the accuracy of structure-based virtual screening.
    Hsieh JH; Yin S; Wang XS; Liu S; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Jan; 52(1):16-28. PubMed ID: 22017385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
    Luo Q; Zhao L; Hu J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine.
    Jain AN
    J Med Chem; 2003 Feb; 46(4):499-511. PubMed ID: 12570372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.