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 *

1146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12910460)

  • 1. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD.
    Verdonk ML; Cole JC; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW; Taylor RD
    Proteins; 2003 Sep; 52(4):609-23. PubMed ID: 12910460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Prediction of binding modes for ligands in the cytochromes P450 and other heme-containing proteins.
    Kirton SB; Murray CW; Verdonk ML; Taylor RD
    Proteins; 2005 Mar; 58(4):836-44. PubMed ID: 15651036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
    Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
    Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions.
    Mooij WT; Verdonk ML
    Proteins; 2005 Nov; 61(2):272-87. PubMed ID: 16106379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(2):526-34. PubMed ID: 17295466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
    Spyrakis F; Amadasi A; Fornabaio M; Abraham DJ; Mozzarelli A; Kellogg GE; Cozzini P
    Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance.
    Sato H; Shewchuk LM; Tang J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Information theory-based scoring function for the structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity.
    Kulharia M; Goody RS; Jackson RM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct; 48(10):1990-8. PubMed ID: 18767831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
    Stroganov OV; Novikov FN; Stroylov VS; Kulkov V; Chilov GG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. PSI-DOCK: towards highly efficient and accurate flexible ligand docking.
    Pei J; Wang Q; Liu Z; Li Q; Yang K; Lai L
    Proteins; 2006 Mar; 62(4):934-46. PubMed ID: 16395666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins?
    Englebienne P; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1568-80. PubMed ID: 19445499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases.
    Floriano WB; Vaidehi N; Zamanakos G; Goddard WA
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):56-71. PubMed ID: 14695820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 58.