282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15154744)
21. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
Zavodszky MI; Rohatgi A; Van Voorst JR; Yan H; Kuhn LA
J Mol Recognit; 2009; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Molecular docking.
Morris GM; Lim-Wilby M
Methods Mol Biol; 2008; 443():365-82. PubMed ID: 18446297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Accuracy assessment of protein-based docking programs against RNA targets.
Li Y; Shen J; Sun X; Li W; Liu G; Tang Y
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1134-46. PubMed ID: 20481574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock.
Rao SN; Head MS; Kulkarni A; LaLonde JM
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2159-71. PubMed ID: 17985863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 5. Force-field-based prediction of binding affinities of ligands to proteins.
Englebienne P; Moitessier N
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2564-71. PubMed ID: 19928836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Testing assumptions and hypotheses for rescoring success in protein-ligand docking.
O'Boyle NM; Liebeschuetz JW; Cole JC
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Aug; 49(8):1871-8. PubMed ID: 19645429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors.
Chen H; Lyne PD; Giordanetto F; Lovell T; Li J
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):401-15. PubMed ID: 16426074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Detailed comparison of the protein-ligand docking efficiencies of GOLD, a commercial package and ArgusLab, a licensable freeware.
Joy S; Nair PS; Hariharan R; Pillai MR
In Silico Biol; 2006; 6(6):601-5. PubMed ID: 17518767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens.
Perola E
Proteins; 2006 Aug; 64(2):422-35. PubMed ID: 16708364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(5):1858-67. PubMed ID: 17685604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. ProPose: steered virtual screening by simultaneous protein-ligand docking and ligand-ligand alignment.
Seifert MH
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(2):449-60. PubMed ID: 15807511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Novel method for generating structure-based pharmacophores using energetic analysis.
Salam NK; Nuti R; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2356-68. PubMed ID: 19761201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Fully automated molecular mechanics based induced fit protein-ligand docking method.
Koska J; Spassov VZ; Maynard AJ; Yan L; Austin N; Flook PK; Venkatachalam CM
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct; 48(10):1965-73. PubMed ID: 18816046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio of scoring functions for protein--ligand docking.
Seifert MH
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):602-12. PubMed ID: 18293951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Using buriedness to improve discrimination between actives and inactives in docking.
O'Boyle NM; Brewerton SC; Taylor R
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Jun; 48(6):1269-78. PubMed ID: 18533645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
Sándor M; Kiss R; Keseru GM
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Using consensus-shape clustering to identify promiscuous ligands and protein targets and to choose the right query for shape-based virtual screening.
Pérez-Nueno VI; Ritchie DW
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Jun; 51(6):1233-48. PubMed ID: 21604699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A knowledge-based weighting approach to ligand-based virtual screening.
Stiefl N; Zaliani A
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(2):587-96. PubMed ID: 16562987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
