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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15154753)

  • 21. Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: a case study on the amphiphysin-1 SH3 domain.
    Hou T; Zhang W; Case DA; Wang W
    J Mol Biol; 2008 Feb; 376(4):1201-14. PubMed ID: 18206907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.
    Friesner RA; Murphy RB; Repasky MP; Frye LL; Greenwood JR; Halgren TA; Sanschagrin PC; Mainz DT
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(21):6177-96. PubMed ID: 17034125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes.
    Zhang C; Liu S; Zhu Q; Zhou Y
    J Med Chem; 2005 Apr; 48(7):2325-35. PubMed ID: 15801826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities using novel geometrical descriptors and machine-learning methods.
    Deng W; Breneman C; Embrechts MJ
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(2):699-703. PubMed ID: 15032552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Structural artifacts in protein-ligand X-ray structures: implications for the development of docking scoring functions.
    Søndergaard CR; Garrett AE; Carstensen T; Pollastri G; Nielsen JE
    J Med Chem; 2009 Sep; 52(18):5673-84. PubMed ID: 19711919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Docking and scoring with alternative side-chain conformations.
    Hartmann C; Antes I; Lengauer T
    Proteins; 2009 Feb; 74(3):712-26. PubMed ID: 18704939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design: 2. Can the knowledge base be enriched?
    Shen Q; Xiong B; Zheng M; Luo X; Luo C; Liu X; Du Y; Li J; Zhu W; Shen J; Jiang H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):386-97. PubMed ID: 21192670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Role of binding entropy in the refinement of protein-ligand docking predictions: analysis based on the use of 11 scoring functions.
    Ruvinsky AM
    J Comput Chem; 2007 Jun; 28(8):1364-72. PubMed ID: 17342720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A QXP-based multistep docking procedure for accurate prediction of protein-ligand complexes.
    Alisaraie L; Haller LA; Fels G
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1174-87. PubMed ID: 16711737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Empirical potential function for simplified protein models: combining contact and local sequence-structure descriptors.
    Zhang J; Chen R; Liang J
    Proteins; 2006 Jun; 63(4):949-60. PubMed ID: 16477624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes.
    Raha K; Merz KM
    J Med Chem; 2005 Jul; 48(14):4558-75. PubMed ID: 15999994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. ID-Score: a new empirical scoring function based on a comprehensive set of descriptors related to protein-ligand interactions.
    Li GB; Yang LL; Wang WJ; Li LL; Yang SY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Mar; 53(3):592-600. PubMed ID: 23394072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Estimating protein-ligand binding free energy: atomic solvation parameters for partition coefficient and solvation free energy calculation.
    Pei J; Wang Q; Zhou J; Lai L
    Proteins; 2004 Dec; 57(4):651-64. PubMed ID: 15390269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Binding affinity prediction for protein-ligand complexes based on β contacts and B factor.
    Liu Q; Kwoh CK; Li J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3076-85. PubMed ID: 24191692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.