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 *

269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16708364)

  • 1. Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens.
    Perola E
    Proteins; 2006 Aug; 64(2):422-35. PubMed ID: 16708364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases.
    Floriano WB; Vaidehi N; Zamanakos G; Goddard WA
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):56-71. PubMed ID: 14695820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems.
    Kellenberger E; Foata N; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1014-25. PubMed ID: 18412328
    [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. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Improved lead-finding for kinase targets using high-throughput docking.
    McInnes C
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2006 May; 9(3):339-47. PubMed ID: 16729730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions.
    Deng Z; Chuaqui C; Singh J
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(2):337-44. PubMed ID: 14711306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols (1): exploration of ligand conformational sampling techniques.
    Good AC; Cheney DL
    J Mol Graph Model; 2003 Sep; 22(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 12798388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Is it possible to increase hit rates in structure-based virtual screening by pharmacophore filtering? An investigation of the advantages and pitfalls of post-filtering.
    Muthas D; Sabnis YA; Lundborg M; Karlén A
    J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Jun; 26(8):1237-51. PubMed ID: 18203638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.
    Friesner RA; Murphy RB; Repasky MP; Frye LL; Greenwood JR; Halgren TA; Sanschagrin PC; Mainz DT
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(21):6177-96. PubMed ID: 17034125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Protein-protein docking in CAPRI using ATTRACT to account for global and local flexibility.
    May A; Zacharias M
    Proteins; 2007 Dec; 69(4):774-80. PubMed ID: 17803217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Chemical space sampling in virtual screening by different crystal structures.
    Brooijmans N; Humblet C
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2010 Dec; 76(6):472-9. PubMed ID: 20958920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine.
    Jain AN
    J Med Chem; 2003 Feb; 46(4):499-511. PubMed ID: 12570372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening.
    Yang JM; Chen YF; Shen TW; Kristal BS; Hsu DF
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1134-46. PubMed ID: 16045308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.