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 *

352 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15340911)

  • 1. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.
    Kellenberger E; Rodrigo J; Muller P; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2004 Nov; 57(2):225-42. PubMed ID: 15340911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex.
    Miteva MA; Lee WH; Montes MO; Villoutreix BO
    J Med Chem; 2005 Sep; 48(19):6012-22. PubMed ID: 16162004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening.
    Kontoyianni M; Sokol GS; McClellan LM
    J Comput Chem; 2005 Jan; 26(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 15526325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy.
    Erickson JA; Jalaie M; Robertson DH; Lewis RA; Vieth M
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):45-55. PubMed ID: 14695819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficient virtual screening using multiple protein conformations described as negative images of the ligand-binding site.
    Virtanen SI; Pentikäinen OT
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1005-11. PubMed ID: 20504004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Benchmarking docking and scoring protocol for the identification of potential acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
    Zaheer-ul-Haq ; Halim SA; Uddin R; Madura JD
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Jun; 28(8):870-82. PubMed ID: 20447848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Protein structures in virtual screening: a case study with CDK2.
    Thomas MP; McInnes C; Fischer PM
    J Med Chem; 2006 Jan; 49(1):92-104. PubMed ID: 16392795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact of ligand protonation on virtual screening against beta-secretase (BACE1).
    Polgar T; Magyar C; Simon I; Keserü GM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2366-73. PubMed ID: 17944457
    [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. 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]  

  • 19. Binding mode prediction of cytochrome p450 and thymidine kinase protein-ligand complexes by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking.
    de Graaf C; Pospisil P; Pos W; Folkers G; Vermeulen NP
    J Med Chem; 2005 Apr; 48(7):2308-18. PubMed ID: 15801824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The use of protein-ligand interaction fingerprints in docking.
    Brewerton SC
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2008 May; 11(3):356-64. PubMed ID: 18428089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.