255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14761196)
1. Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening.
Jain AN
J Med Chem; 2004 Feb; 47(4):947-61. PubMed ID: 14761196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols.
Evers A; Hessler G; Matter H; Klabunde T
J Med Chem; 2005 Aug; 48(17):5448-65. PubMed ID: 16107144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Impact of conformational flexibility on three-dimensional similarity searching using correlation vectors.
Renner S; Schwab CH; Gasteiger J; Schneider G
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2324-32. PubMed ID: 17125176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA
J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Importance of molecular computer modeling in anticancer drug development.
Geromichalos GD
J BUON; 2007 Sep; 12 Suppl 1():S101-18. PubMed ID: 17935268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. FLEXS: a method for fast flexible ligand superposition.
Lemmen C; Lengauer T; Klebe G
J Med Chem; 1998 Nov; 41(23):4502-20. PubMed ID: 9804690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.
Hawkins PC; Skillman AG; Nicholls A
J Med Chem; 2007 Jan; 50(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 17201411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Homology model adjustment and ligand screening with a pseudoreceptor of the human histamine H4 receptor.
Tanrikulu Y; Proschak E; Werner T; Geppert T; Todoroff N; Klenner A; Kottke T; Sander K; Schneider E; Seifert R; Stark H; Clark T; Schneider G
ChemMedChem; 2009 May; 4(5):820-7. PubMed ID: 19343764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
Cross JB; Thompson DC; Rai BK; Baber JC; Fan KY; Hu Y; Humblet C
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions.
Deng Z; Chuaqui C; Singh J
J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(2):337-44. PubMed ID: 14711306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.
Giganti D; Guillemain H; Spadoni JL; Nilges M; Zagury JF; Montes M
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):992-1004. PubMed ID: 20527883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Ligand-based virtual screening and in silico design of new antimalarial compounds using nonstochastic and stochastic total and atom-type quadratic maps.
Marrero-Ponce Y; Iyarreta-Veitía M; Montero-Torres A; Romero-Zaldivar C; Brandt CA; Avila PE; Kirchgatter K; Machado Y
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1082-100. PubMed ID: 16045304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Virtual screen for ligands of orphan G protein-coupled receptors.
Bock JR; Gough DA
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(5):1402-14. PubMed ID: 16180917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. PREDICT modeling and in-silico screening for G-protein coupled receptors.
Shacham S; Marantz Y; Bar-Haim S; Kalid O; Warshaviak D; Avisar N; Inbal B; Heifetz A; Fichman M; Topf M; Naor Z; Noiman S; Becker OM
Proteins; 2004 Oct; 57(1):51-86. PubMed ID: 15326594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Focused library design in GPCR projects on the example of 5-HT(2c) agonists: comparison of structure-based virtual screening with ligand-based search methods.
Bissantz C; Schalon C; Guba W; Stahl M
Proteins; 2005 Dec; 61(4):938-52. PubMed ID: 16224780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. (3). New methods and old problems in scoring function design.
Smith R; Hubbard RE; Gschwend DA; Leach AR; Good AC
J Mol Graph Model; 2003 Sep; 22(1):41-53. PubMed ID: 12798390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
Krüger DM; Evers A
ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.
McGaughey GB; Sheridan RP; Bayly CI; Culberson JC; Kreatsoulas C; Lindsley S; Maiorov V; Truchon JF; Cornell WD
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(4):1504-19. PubMed ID: 17591764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
