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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16426074)

  • 1. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Chen H; Lyne PD; Giordanetto F; Lovell T; Li J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):401-15. PubMed ID: 16426074
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.
    Giganti D; Guillemain H; Spadoni JL; Nilges M; Zagury JF; Montes M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):992-1004. PubMed ID: 20527883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.
    McGaughey GB; Sheridan RP; Bayly CI; Culberson JC; Kreatsoulas C; Lindsley S; Maiorov V; Truchon JF; Cornell WD
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(4):1504-19. PubMed ID: 17591764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment.
    Verdonk ML; Berdini V; Hartshorn MJ; Mooij WT; Murray CW; Taylor RD; Watson P
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):793-806. PubMed ID: 15154744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of ligand-based and receptor-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors using 3D ligand shape matching and ligand-receptor docking.
    Pérez-Nueno VI; Ritchie DW; Rabal O; Pascual R; Borrell JI; Teixidó J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):509-33. PubMed ID: 18298095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
    Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Improving virtual screening performance against conformational variations of receptors by shape matching with ligand binding pocket.
    Lee HS; Lee CS; Kim JS; Kim DH; Choe H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2419-28. PubMed ID: 19852439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.