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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17854167)

  • 1. Ligand-based virtual screening by novelty detection with self-organizing maps.
    Hristozov D; Oprea TI; Gasteiger J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2044-62. PubMed ID: 17854167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. "Bayes affinity fingerprints" improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: when are multitarget drugs a feasible concept?
    Bender A; Jenkins JL; Glick M; Deng Z; Nettles JH; Davies JW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2445-56. PubMed ID: 17125186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening.
    Huang N; Kalyanaraman C; Irwin JJ; Jacobson MP
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):243-53. PubMed ID: 16426060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication.
    Bender A; Glen RC
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(5):1369-75. PubMed ID: 16180913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A similarity-based data-fusion approach to the visual characterization and comparison of compound databases.
    Medina-Franco JL; Maggiora GM; Giulianotti MA; Pinilla C; Houghten RA
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2007 Nov; 70(5):393-412. PubMed ID: 17927720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Integrating structure- and ligand-based virtual screening: comparison of individual, parallel, and fused molecular docking and similarity search calculations on multiple targets.
    Tan L; Geppert H; Sisay MT; Gütschow M; Bajorath J
    ChemMedChem; 2008 Oct; 3(10):1566-71. PubMed ID: 18651695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
    Zavodszky MI; Rohatgi A; Van Voorst JR; Yan H; Kuhn LA
    J Mol Recognit; 2009; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set.
    Tiikkainen P; Markt P; Wolber G; Kirchmair J; Distinto S; Poso A; Kallioniemi O
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2168-78. PubMed ID: 19799417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Virtual screening applications: a study of ligand-based methods and different structure representations in four different scenarios.
    Hristozov DP; Oprea TI; Gasteiger J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2007; 21(10-11):617-40. PubMed ID: 18008169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Novel approach to structure-based pharmacophore search using computational geometry and shape matching techniques.
    Ebalunode JO; Ouyang Z; Liang J; Zheng W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):889-901. PubMed ID: 18396858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space.
    Bender A; Jenkins JL; Scheiber J; Sukuru SC; Glick M; Davies JW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jan; 49(1):108-19. PubMed ID: 19123924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set.
    von Korff M; Freyss J; Sander T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Feb; 49(2):209-31. PubMed ID: 19434824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mapping algorithms for molecular similarity analysis and ligand-based virtual screening: design of DynaMAD and comparison with MAD and DMC.
    Eckert H; Vogt I; Bajorath J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(4):1623-34. PubMed ID: 16859294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Focused library design in GPCR projects on the example of 5-HT(2c) agonists: comparison of structure-based virtual screening with ligand-based search methods.
    Bissantz C; Schalon C; Guba W; Stahl M
    Proteins; 2005 Dec; 61(4):938-52. PubMed ID: 16224780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Virtual screening against highly charged active sites: identifying substrates of alpha-beta barrel enzymes.
    Kalyanaraman C; Bernacki K; Jacobson MP
    Biochemistry; 2005 Feb; 44(6):2059-71. PubMed ID: 15697231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. SeleX-CS: a new consensus scoring algorithm for hit discovery and lead optimization.
    Bar-Haim S; Aharon A; Ben-Moshe T; Marantz Y; Senderowitz H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Mar; 49(3):623-33. PubMed ID: 19231809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Relationships between Molecular Complexity, Biological Activity, and Structural Diversity.
    Schuffenhauer A; Brown N; Selzer P; Ertl P; Jacoby E
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(2):525-35. PubMed ID: 16562980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Introduction of a generally applicable method to estimate retrieval of active molecules for similarity searching using fingerprints.
    Vogt M; Bajorath J
    ChemMedChem; 2007 Sep; 2(9):1311-20. PubMed ID: 17562536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. BRUTUS: optimization of a grid-based similarity function for rigid-body molecular superposition. 1. Alignment and virtual screening applications.
    Tervo AJ; Rönkkö T; Nyrönen TH; Poso A
    J Med Chem; 2005 Jun; 48(12):4076-86. PubMed ID: 15943481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of ligand-based and receptor-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors using 3D ligand shape matching and ligand-receptor docking.
    Pérez-Nueno VI; Ritchie DW; Rabal O; Pascual R; Borrell JI; Teixidó J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):509-33. PubMed ID: 18298095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.