149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17205374)
21. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Form follows function: shape analysis of protein cavities for receptor-based drug design.
Weisel M; Proschak E; Kriegl JM; Schneider G
Proteomics; 2009 Jan; 9(2):451-9. PubMed ID: 19142949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Efficient overlay of small organic molecules using 3D pharmacophores.
Wolber G; Dornhofer AA; Langer T
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2006 Dec; 20(12):773-88. PubMed ID: 17051340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Impact of Molecular Descriptors on Computational Models.
Grisoni F; Consonni V; Todeschini R
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1825():171-209. PubMed ID: 30334206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The effect of a tightly bound water molecule on scaffold diversity in the computer-aided de novo ligand design of CDK2 inhibitors.
García-Sosa AT; Mancera RL
J Mol Model; 2006 Mar; 12(4):422-31. PubMed ID: 16374623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Generalized modeling of enzyme-ligand interactions using proteochemometrics and local protein substructures.
Strömbergsson H; Kryshtafovych A; Prusis P; Fidelis K; Wikberg JE; Komorowski J; Hvidsten TR
Proteins; 2006 Nov; 65(3):568-79. PubMed ID: 16948162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.
Xu W; Lucke AJ; Fairlie DP
J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Apr; 57():76-88. PubMed ID: 25682361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. Chemometric analysis of ligand receptor complementarity: identifying Complementary Ligands Based on Receptor Information (CoLiBRI).
Oloff S; Zhang S; Sukumar N; Breneman C; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(2):844-51. PubMed ID: 16563016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. How diverse are diversity assessment methods? A comparative analysis and benchmarking of molecular descriptor space.
Koutsoukas A; Paricharak S; Galloway WR; Spring DR; Ijzerman AP; Glen RC; Marcus D; Bender A
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):230-42. PubMed ID: 24289493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Ligand prediction from protein sequence and small molecule information using support vector machines and fingerprint descriptors.
Geppert H; Humrich J; Stumpfe D; Gärtner T; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):767-79. PubMed ID: 19309114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Protein-ligand-based pharmacophores: generation and utility assessment in computational ligand profiling.
Meslamani J; Li J; Sutter J; Stevens A; Bertrand HO; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Apr; 52(4):943-55. PubMed ID: 22480372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Binding affinity prediction for protein-ligand complexes based on β contacts and B factor.
Liu Q; Kwoh CK; Li J
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3076-85. PubMed ID: 24191692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. An efficient tool for identifying inhibitors based on 3D-QSAR and docking using feature-shape pharmacophore of biologically active conformation--a case study with CDK2/cyclinA.
Mascarenhas NM; Ghoshal N
Eur J Med Chem; 2008 Dec; 43(12):2807-18. PubMed ID: 18037537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Predicting the multi-modal binding propensity of small molecules: towards an understanding of drug promiscuity.
Park K; Lee S; Ahn HS; Kim D
Mol Biosyst; 2009 Aug; 5(8):844-53. PubMed ID: 19603120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A comparative QSAR study using CoMFA, HQSAR, and FRED/SKEYS paradigms for estrogen receptor binding affinities of structurally diverse compounds.
Waller CL
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(2):758-65. PubMed ID: 15032558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of combinatorial clustering methods on pharmacological data sets represented by machine learning-selected real molecular descriptors.
Rivera-Borroto OM; Marrero-Ponce Y; García-de la Vega JM; Grau-Ábalo Rdel C
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Dec; 51(12):3036-49. PubMed ID: 22098113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Prediction of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and characterization of correlative molecular descriptors by machine learning methods.
Lv W; Xue Y
Eur J Med Chem; 2010 Mar; 45(3):1167-72. PubMed ID: 20053484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
