229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16028223)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. Retrospective docking study of PDE4B ligands and an analysis of the behavior of selected scoring functions.
Mpamhanga CP; Chen B; McLay IM; Ormsby DL; Lindvall MK
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1061-74. PubMed ID: 16045302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Impact of scoring functions on enrichment in docking-based virtual screening: an application study on renin inhibitors.
Krovat EM; Langer T
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):1123-9. PubMed ID: 15154781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. New scoring functions for virtual screening from molecular dynamics simulations with a quantum-refined force-field (QRFF-MD). Application to cyclin-dependent kinase 2.
Ferrara P; Curioni A; Vangrevelinghe E; Meyer T; Mordasini T; Andreoni W; Acklin P; Jacoby E
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):254-63. PubMed ID: 16426061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang R; Lu Y; Wang S
J Med Chem; 2003 Jun; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Cross-docking of inhibitors into CDK2 structures. 1.
Duca JS; Madison VS; Voigt JH
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):659-68. PubMed ID: 18324799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints.
Marcou G; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):195-207. PubMed ID: 17238265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. SeleX-CS: a new consensus scoring algorithm for hit discovery and lead optimization.
Bar-Haim S; Aharon A; Ben-Moshe T; Marantz Y; Senderowitz H
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Mar; 49(3):623-33. PubMed ID: 19231809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Consensus scoring with feature selection for structure-based virtual screening.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):288-95. PubMed ID: 18229906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
