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.
461 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17300160)
1. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. Hartshorn MJ; Verdonk ML; Chessari G; Brewerton SC; Mooij WT; Mortenson PN; Murray CW J Med Chem; 2007 Feb; 50(4):726-41. PubMed ID: 17300160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Nissink JW; Murray C; Hartshorn M; Verdonk ML; Cole JC; Taylor R Proteins; 2002 Dec; 49(4):457-71. PubMed ID: 12402356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. Erickson JA; Jalaie M; Robertson DH; Lewis RA; Vieth M J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):45-55. PubMed ID: 14695819 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. Vigers GP; Rizzi JP J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):80-9. PubMed ID: 14695822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Structural artifacts in protein-ligand X-ray structures: implications for the development of docking scoring functions. Søndergaard CR; Garrett AE; Carstensen T; Pollastri G; Nielsen JE J Med Chem; 2009 Sep; 52(18):5673-84. PubMed ID: 19711919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses. Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. Velec HF; Gohlke H; Klebe G J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(20):6296-303. PubMed ID: 16190756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. Li X; Li Y; Cheng T; Liu Z; Wang R J Comput Chem; 2010 Aug; 31(11):2109-25. PubMed ID: 20127741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. Korb O; Stützle T; Exner TE J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jan; 49(1):84-96. PubMed ID: 19125657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Mooij WT; Verdonk ML Proteins; 2005 Nov; 61(2):272-87. PubMed ID: 16106379 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. EADock: docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Grosdidier A; Zoete V; Michielin O Proteins; 2007 Jun; 67(4):1010-25. PubMed ID: 17380512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]