161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17867664)
1. A critical assessment of the performance of protein-ligand scoring functions based on NMR chemical shift perturbations.
Wang B; Westerhoff LM; Merz KM
J Med Chem; 2007 Oct; 50(21):5128-34. PubMed ID: 17867664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Steering protein-ligand docking with quantitative NMR chemical shift perturbations.
González-Ruiz D; Gohlke H
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2260-71. PubMed ID: 19795907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Using Ligand-Induced Protein Chemical Shift Perturbations To Determine Protein-Ligand Structures.
Yu Z; Li P; Merz KM
Biochemistry; 2017 May; 56(18):2349-2362. PubMed ID: 28406291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins.
Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Auto-FACE: an NMR based binding site mapping program for fast chemical exchange protein-ligand systems.
Krishnamoorthy J; Yu VC; Mok YK
PLoS One; 2010 Feb; 5(2):e8943. PubMed ID: 20174626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.
Proctor EA; Yin S; Tropsha A; Dokholyan NV
Biophys J; 2012 Jan; 102(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 22225808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of Protein-Ligand Docking by Cyscore.
Cao Y; Dai W; Miao Z
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1762():233-243. PubMed ID: 29594775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Machine learning in computational docking.
Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Pose scoring by NMR.
Wang B; Raha K; Merz KM
J Am Chem Soc; 2004 Sep; 126(37):11430-1. PubMed ID: 15366876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Performance of protein-ligand docking with simulated chemical shift perturbations.
Ten Brink T; Aguirre C; Exner TE; Krimm I
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Feb; 55(2):275-83. PubMed ID: 25357133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?
Korb O; Ten Brink T; Victor Paul Raj FR; Keil M; Exner TE
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Feb; 26(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 22231069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
