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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15715466)

  • 1. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools.
    Cummings MD; DesJarlais RL; Gibbs AC; Mohan V; Jaeger EP
    J Med Chem; 2005 Feb; 48(4):962-76. PubMed ID: 15715466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening.
    Vigers GP; Rizzi JP
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):80-9. PubMed ID: 14695822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Critical assessment of the automated AutoDock as a new docking tool for virtual screening.
    Park H; Lee J; Lee S
    Proteins; 2006 Nov; 65(3):549-54. PubMed ID: 16988956
    [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. Comparative binding energy analysis for binding affinity and target selectivity prediction.
    Henrich S; Feierberg I; Wang T; Blomberg N; Wade RC
    Proteins; 2010 Jan; 78(1):135-53. PubMed ID: 19768680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Protein tyrosine phosphatases: Ligand interaction analysis and optimisation of virtual screening.
    Ghattas MA; Atatreh N; Bichenkova EV; Bryce RA
    J Mol Graph Model; 2014 Jul; 52():114-23. PubMed ID: 25038507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring.
    Zhang Q; Muegge I
    J Med Chem; 2006 Mar; 49(5):1536-48. PubMed ID: 16509572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. VSpipe, an Integrated Resource for Virtual Screening and Hit Selection: Applications to Protein Tyrosine Phospahatase Inhibition.
    Álvarez-Carretero S; Pavlopoulou N; Adams J; Gilsenan J; Tabernero L
    Molecules; 2018 Feb; 23(2):. PubMed ID: 29414924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints.
    Renner S; Derksen S; Radestock S; Mörchen F
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. SDOCKER: a method utilizing existing X-ray structures to improve docking accuracy.
    Wu G; Vieth M
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jun; 47(12):3142-8. PubMed ID: 15163194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ligand-induced conformational changes: improved predictions of ligand binding conformations and affinities.
    Frimurer TM; Peters GH; Iversen LF; Andersen HS; Møller NP; Olsen OH
    Biophys J; 2003 Apr; 84(4):2273-81. PubMed ID: 12668436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. SHOP: scaffold HOPping by GRID-based similarity searches.
    Bergmann R; Linusson A; Zamora I
    J Med Chem; 2007 May; 50(11):2708-17. PubMed ID: 17489578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. FlexX-Scan: fast, structure-based virtual screening.
    Schellhammer I; Rarey M
    Proteins; 2004 Nov; 57(3):504-17. PubMed ID: 15382244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking.
    Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
    J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Effects of variable docking conditions and scoring functions on corresponding protein-aligned comparative molecular field analysis models constructed from diverse human protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitors.
    Taha MO; AlDamen MA
    J Med Chem; 2005 Dec; 48(25):8016-34. PubMed ID: 16335926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.