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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11985464)

  • 1. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparative evaluation of DrugScore.
    Sotriffer CA; Gohlke H; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2002 May; 45(10):1967-70. PubMed ID: 11985464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Converging a Knowledge-Based Scoring Function: DrugScore
    Dittrich J; Schmidt D; Pfleger C; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jan; 59(1):509-521. PubMed ID: 30513206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction.
    Velec HF; Gohlke H; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(20):6296-303. PubMed ID: 16190756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Diversity-guided Lamarckian random drift particle swarm optimization for flexible ligand docking.
    Li C; Sun J; Palade V
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2020 Jul; 21(1):286. PubMed ID: 32631216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. DrugScoreRNA--knowledge-based scoring function to predict RNA-ligand interactions.
    Pfeffer P; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(5):1868-76. PubMed ID: 17705464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. DrugScore meets CoMFA: adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) or how to tailor knowledge-based pair-potentials to a particular protein.
    Gohlke H; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2002 Sep; 45(19):4153-70. PubMed ID: 12213058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Wang S
    J Med Chem; 2003 Jun; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A practical approach to docking of zinc metalloproteinase inhibitors.
    Hu X; Balaz S; Shelver WH
    J Mol Graph Model; 2004 Mar; 22(4):293-307. PubMed ID: 15177081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields.
    Radestock S; Böhm M; Gohlke H
    J Med Chem; 2005 Aug; 48(17):5466-79. PubMed ID: 16107145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. MiniMuDS: a new optimizer using knowledge-based potentials improves scoring of docking solutions.
    Spitzmüller A; Velec HF; Klebe G
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Jun; 51(6):1423-30. PubMed ID: 21528908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. DSX: a knowledge-based scoring function for the assessment of protein-ligand complexes.
    Neudert G; Klebe G
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Oct; 51(10):2731-45. PubMed ID: 21863864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Flexible ligand docking using evolutionary algorithms: investigating the effects of variation operators and local search hybrids.
    Thomsen R
    Biosystems; 2003 Nov; 72(1-2):57-73. PubMed ID: 14642659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. SODOCK: swarm optimization for highly flexible protein-ligand docking.
    Chen HM; Liu BF; Huang HL; Hwang SF; Ho SY
    J Comput Chem; 2007 Jan; 28(2):612-23. PubMed ID: 17186483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. pso@autodock: a fast flexible molecular docking program based on Swarm intelligence.
    Namasivayam V; Günther R
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2007 Dec; 70(6):475-84. PubMed ID: 17986206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking.
    Thomsen R; Christensen MH
    J Med Chem; 2006 Jun; 49(11):3315-21. PubMed ID: 16722650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.
    Ferrara P; Gohlke H; Price DJ; Klebe G; Brooks CL
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jun; 47(12):3032-47. PubMed ID: 15163185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
    Warren GL; Andrews CW; Capelli AM; Clarke B; LaLonde J; Lambert MH; Lindvall M; Nevins N; Semus SF; Senger S; Tedesco G; Wall ID; Woolven JM; Peishoff CE; Head MS
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
    Cheng T; Li X; Li Y; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Steering protein-ligand docking with quantitative NMR chemical shift perturbations.
    González-Ruiz D; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2260-71. PubMed ID: 19795907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How good are state-of-the-art docking tools in predicting ligand binding modes in protein-protein interfaces?
    Krüger DM; Jessen G; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Nov; 52(11):2807-11. PubMed ID: 23072688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.