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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11394737)

  • 1. Protein ligand docking based on empirical method for binding affinity estimation.
    Tao P; Lai L
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2001 May; 15(5):429-46. PubMed ID: 11394737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5.
    Moustakas DT; Lang PT; Pegg S; Pettersen E; Kuntz ID; Brooijmans N; Rizzo RC
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2006; 20(10-11):601-19. PubMed ID: 17149653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. SuperStar: improved knowledge-based interaction fields for protein binding sites.
    Verdonk ML; Cole JC; Watson P; Gillet V; Willett P
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Mar; 307(3):841-59. PubMed ID: 11273705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations.
    Claussen H; Buning C; Rarey M; Lengauer T
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Apr; 308(2):377-95. PubMed ID: 11327774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
    Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles.
    Lorber DM; Shoichet BK
    Protein Sci; 1998 Apr; 7(4):938-50. PubMed ID: 9568900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improving the scoring of protein-ligand binding affinity by including the effects of structural water and electronic polarization.
    Liu J; He X; Zhang JZ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jun; 53(6):1306-14. PubMed ID: 23651068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of input differences on the results of docking calculations.
    Feher M; Williams CI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jul; 49(7):1704-14. PubMed ID: 19530660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Development of filter functions for protein-ligand docking.
    Stahl M; Böhm HJ
    J Mol Graph Model; 1998 Jun; 16(3):121-32. PubMed ID: 10434251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
    Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fully automated flexible docking of ligands into flexible synthetic receptors using forward and inverse docking strategies.
    Kämper A; Apostolakis J; Rarey M; Marian CM; Lengauer T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(2):903-11. PubMed ID: 16563022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. High-Confidence Protein-Ligand Complex Modeling by NMR-Guided Docking Enables Early Hit Optimization.
    Proudfoot A; Bussiere DE; Lingel A
    J Am Chem Soc; 2017 Dec; 139(49):17824-17833. PubMed ID: 29190085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking.
    Jones G; Willett P; Glen RC; Leach AR; Taylor R
    J Mol Biol; 1997 Apr; 267(3):727-48. PubMed ID: 9126849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. FDS: flexible ligand and receptor docking with a continuum solvent model and soft-core energy function.
    Taylor RD; Jewsbury PJ; Essex JW
    J Comput Chem; 2003 Oct; 24(13):1637-56. PubMed ID: 12926007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Novel Consensus Docking Strategy to Improve Ligand Pose Prediction.
    Ren X; Shi YS; Zhang Y; Liu B; Zhang LH; Peng YB; Zeng R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1662-1668. PubMed ID: 30044626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers.
    Verdonk ML; Mortenson PN; Hall RJ; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2214-25. PubMed ID: 18954138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A general approach for developing system-specific functions to score protein-ligand docked complexes using support vector inductive logic programming.
    Amini A; Shrimpton PJ; Muggleton SH; Sternberg MJ
    Proteins; 2007 Dec; 69(4):823-31. PubMed ID: 17910057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.