185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15974595)
21. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions.
Mooij WT; Verdonk ML
Proteins; 2005 Nov; 61(2):272-87. PubMed ID: 16106379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Virtual screening to enrich a compound collection with CDK2 inhibitors using docking, scoring, and composite scoring models.
Cotesta S; Giordanetto F; Trosset JY; Crivori P; Kroemer RT; Stouten PF; Vulpetti A
Proteins; 2005 Sep; 60(4):629-43. PubMed ID: 16028223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Predicting fragment binding poses using a combined MCSS MM-GBSA approach.
Haider MK; Bertrand HO; Hubbard RE
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 May; 51(5):1092-105. PubMed ID: 21528911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Ensemble docking into multiple crystallographically derived protein structures: an evaluation based on the statistical analysis of enrichments.
Craig IR; Essex JW; Spiegel K
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Apr; 50(4):511-24. PubMed ID: 20222690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Efficient inclusion of receptor flexibility in grid-based protein-ligand docking.
Leis S; Zacharias M
J Comput Chem; 2011 Dec; 32(16):3433-9. PubMed ID: 21919015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Discovery of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, CR229, using structurebased drug screening.
Kim MK; Min J; Choi BY; Lim H; Cho YH; Lee CH
J Microbiol Biotechnol; 2007 Oct; 17(10):1712-6. PubMed ID: 18156791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Optimization of high throughput virtual screening by combining shape-matching and docking methods.
Lee HS; Choi J; Kufareva I; Abagyan R; Filikov A; Yang Y; Yoon S
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):489-97. PubMed ID: 18302357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Flexible docking of ligands into synthetic receptors using a two-sided incremental construction algorithm.
Steffen A; Kämper A; Lengauer T
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(4):1695-703. PubMed ID: 16859301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. pyDock: electrostatics and desolvation for effective scoring of rigid-body protein-protein docking.
Cheng TM; Blundell TL; Fernandez-Recio J
Proteins; 2007 Aug; 68(2):503-15. PubMed ID: 17444519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Conformation mining: an algorithm for finding biologically relevant conformations.
Putta S; Landrum GA; Penzotti JE
J Med Chem; 2005 May; 48(9):3313-8. PubMed ID: 15857136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Complementarity of hydrophobic properties in ATP-protein binding: a new criterion to rank docking solutions.
Pyrkov TV; Kosinsky YA; Arseniev AS; Priestle JP; Jacoby E; Efremov RG
Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):388-98. PubMed ID: 17094116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Integration of ligand and structure-based virtual screening for the identification of the first dual targeting agent for heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) and tubulin.
Knox AJ; Price T; Pawlak M; Golfis G; Flood CT; Fayne D; Williams DC; Meegan MJ; Lloyd DG
J Med Chem; 2009 Apr; 52(8):2177-80. PubMed ID: 19331414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Molecular docking of balanol to dynamics snapshots of protein kinase A.
Wong CF; Kua J; Zhang Y; Straatsma TP; McCammon JA
Proteins; 2005 Dec; 61(4):850-8. PubMed ID: 16245317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Docking of ATP to Ca-ATPase: considering protein domain motions.
Pyrkov TV; Kosinsky YA; Arseniev AS; Priestle JP; Jacoby E; Efremov RG
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(3):1171-81. PubMed ID: 17489554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A flexible approach to induced fit docking.
Nabuurs SB; Wagener M; de Vlieg J
J Med Chem; 2007 Dec; 50(26):6507-18. PubMed ID: 18031000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Receptor flexibility for large-scale in silico ligand screens: chances and challenges.
Fischer B; Merlitz H; Wenzel W
Methods Mol Biol; 2008; 443():353-64. PubMed ID: 18446296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Receptor flexibility in de novo ligand design and docking.
Alberts IL; Todorov NP; Dean PM
J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(21):6585-96. PubMed ID: 16220975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
