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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17004701)

  • 1. Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data.
    Pham TA; Jain AN
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5856-68. PubMed ID: 17004701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PostDOCK: a structural, empirical approach to scoring protein ligand complexes.
    Springer C; Adalsteinsson H; Young MM; Kegelmeyer PW; Roe DC
    J Med Chem; 2005 Nov; 48(22):6821-31. PubMed ID: 16250641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.
    Ferrara P; Gohlke H; Price DJ; Klebe G; Brooks CL
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jun; 47(12):3032-47. PubMed ID: 15163185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening.
    Halgren TA; Murphy RB; Friesner RA; Beard HS; Frye LL; Pollard WT; Banks JL
    J Med Chem; 2004 Mar; 47(7):1750-9. PubMed ID: 15027866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps.
    Leach AR; Shoichet BK; Peishoff CE
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5851-5. PubMed ID: 17004700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
    Muegge I; Martin YC
    J Med Chem; 1999 Mar; 42(5):791-804. PubMed ID: 10072678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A Bayesian statistical approach of improving knowledge-based scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.
    Grinter SZ; Zou X
    J Comput Chem; 2014 May; 35(12):932-43. PubMed ID: 24623011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein-ligand docking.
    Baek M; Shin WH; Chung HW; Seok C
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Jul; 31(7):653-666. PubMed ID: 28623486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein - ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation.
    Grudinin S; Kadukova M; Eisenbarth A; Marillet S; Cazals F
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):791-804. PubMed ID: 27718029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A method for induced-fit docking, scoring, and ranking of flexible ligands. Application to peptidic and pseudopeptidic beta-secretase (BACE 1) inhibitors.
    Moitessier N; Therrien E; Hanessian S
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5885-94. PubMed ID: 17004704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Development and evaluation of a generic evolutionary method for protein-ligand docking.
    Yang JM
    J Comput Chem; 2004 Apr; 25(6):843-57. PubMed ID: 15011256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.