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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16821782)

  • 1. Virtual screening of DNA minor groove binders.
    Evans DA; Neidle S
    J Med Chem; 2006 Jul; 49(14):4232-8. PubMed ID: 16821782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Critical assessment of the automated AutoDock as a new docking tool for virtual screening.
    Park H; Lee J; Lee S
    Proteins; 2006 Nov; 65(3):549-54. PubMed ID: 16988956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. (3). New methods and old problems in scoring function design.
    Smith R; Hubbard RE; Gschwend DA; Leach AR; Good AC
    J Mol Graph Model; 2003 Sep; 22(1):41-53. PubMed ID: 12798390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening.
    Jain AN
    J Med Chem; 2004 Feb; 47(4):947-61. PubMed ID: 14761196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
    Spyrakis F; Amadasi A; Fornabaio M; Abraham DJ; Mozzarelli A; Kellogg GE; Cozzini P
    Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of binary QSAR models derived from LUDI and MOE scoring functions for structure based virtual screening.
    Prathipati P; Saxena AK
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 16426038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. pso@autodock: a fast flexible molecular docking program based on Swarm intelligence.
    Namasivayam V; Günther R
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2007 Dec; 70(6):475-84. PubMed ID: 17986206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Automatic and efficient decomposition of two-dimensional structures of small molecules for fragment-based high-throughput docking.
    Kolb P; Caflisch A
    J Med Chem; 2006 Dec; 49(25):7384-92. PubMed ID: 17149868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Virtual screening with flexible docking and COMBINE-based models. Application to a series of factor Xa inhibitors.
    Murcia M; Ortiz AR
    J Med Chem; 2004 Feb; 47(4):805-20. PubMed ID: 14761183
    [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]  

  • 13. Validation of automated docking programs for docking and database screening against RNA drug targets.
    Detering C; Varani G
    J Med Chem; 2004 Aug; 47(17):4188-201. PubMed ID: 15293991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluations of molecular docking programs for virtual screening.
    Onodera K; Satou K; Hirota H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(4):1609-18. PubMed ID: 17602548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Identification of Plasmodium falciparum spermidine synthase active site binders through structure-based virtual screening.
    Jacobsson M; Gäredal M; Schultz J; Karlén A
    J Med Chem; 2008 May; 51(9):2777-86. PubMed ID: 18410081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Finding more needles in the haystack: A simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results.
    Klon AE; Glick M; Thoma M; Acklin P; Davies JW
    J Med Chem; 2004 May; 47(11):2743-9. PubMed ID: 15139752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Targeting the DNA minor groove with fused ring dicationic compounds: comparison of in silico screening and a high-resolution crystal structure.
    Campbell NH; Evans DA; Lee MP; Parkinson GN; Neidle S
    Bioorg Med Chem Lett; 2006 Jan; 16(1):15-9. PubMed ID: 16263285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of computational methods to model DNA minor groove binders.
    Srivastava HK; Chourasia M; Kumar D; Sastry GN
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Mar; 51(3):558-71. PubMed ID: 21375336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Structure-based virtual screening for low molecular weight chemical starting points for dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors.
    Ward RA; Perkins TD; Stafford J
    J Med Chem; 2005 Nov; 48(22):6991-6. PubMed ID: 16250657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.