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.
5. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Binding energy landscape analysis helps to discriminate true hits from high-scoring decoys in virtual screening. Wei D; Zheng H; Su N; Deng M; Lai L J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Oct; 50(10):1855-64. PubMed ID: 20968314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A pharmacophore-based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators. Yang JM; Shen TW Proteins; 2005 May; 59(2):205-20. PubMed ID: 15726586 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Ligand bias of scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. Jacobsson M; Karlén A J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1334-43. PubMed ID: 16711752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
14. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. Bissantz C; Folkers G; Rognan D J Med Chem; 2000 Dec; 43(25):4759-67. PubMed ID: 11123984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening. Huang N; Kalyanaraman C; Irwin JJ; Jacobson MP J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):243-53. PubMed ID: 16426060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing different classification methods for virtual screening. Plewczynski D; Spieser SA; Koch U J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1098-106. PubMed ID: 16711730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Novel inhibitor discovery through virtual screening against multiple protein conformations generated via ligand-directed modeling: a maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase example. Mahasenan KV; Li C J Chem Inf Model; 2012 May; 52(5):1345-55. PubMed ID: 22540736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]