119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16472219)
1. The FlexX database docking environment--rational extraction of receptor based pharmacophores.
Claussen H; Gastreich M; Apelt V; Greene J; Hindle SA; Lemmen C
Curr Drug Discov Technol; 2004 Jan; 1(1):49-60. PubMed ID: 16472219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints.
Hindle SA; Rarey M; Buning C; Lengaue T
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Feb; 16(2):129-49. PubMed ID: 12188022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-Protein Coupled Receptors suitable targets?
Bissantz C; Bernard P; Hibert M; Rognan D
Proteins; 2003 Jan; 50(1):5-25. PubMed ID: 12471595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Library design and virtual screening using multiple 4-point pharmacophore fingerprints.
Mason JS; Cheney DL
Pac Symp Biocomput; 2000; ():576-87. PubMed ID: 10902205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. GRID-based three-dimensional pharmacophores I: FLAPpharm, a novel approach for pharmacophore elucidation.
Cross S; Baroni M; Goracci L; Cruciani G
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Oct; 52(10):2587-98. PubMed ID: 22970894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of two implementations of the incremental construction algorithm in flexible docking of thrombin inhibitors.
Knegtel RM; Bayada DM; Engh RA; von der Saal W; van Geerestein VJ; Grootenhuis PD
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 1999 Mar; 13(2):167-83. PubMed ID: 10091122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking.
Kramer B; Rarey M; Lengauer T
Proteins; 1999 Nov; 37(2):228-41. PubMed ID: 10584068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking.
Knegtel RM; Wagener M
Proteins; 1999 Nov; 37(3):334-45. PubMed ID: 10591095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Ultrafast de novo docking combining pharmacophores and combinatorics.
Gastreich M; Lilienthal M; Briem H; Claussen H
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2006 Dec; 20(12):717-34. PubMed ID: 17265098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pharmacophore modeling using site-identification by ligand competitive saturation (SILCS) with multiple probe molecules.
Yu W; Lakkaraju SK; Raman EP; Fang L; MacKerell AD
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Feb; 55(2):407-20. PubMed ID: 25622696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
