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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17867664)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Quantitative use of chemical shifts for the modeling of protein complexes.
    Stratmann D; Boelens R; Bonvin AM
    Proteins; 2011 Sep; 79(9):2662-70. PubMed ID: 21744392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking.
    Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
    J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints.
    Renner S; Derksen S; Radestock S; Mörchen F
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints.
    Liu J; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Li Y; Wang R
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28720122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. BALLDock/SLICK: a new method for protein-carbohydrate docking.
    Kerzmann A; Fuhrmann J; Kohlbacher O; Neumann D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1616-25. PubMed ID: 18646839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. On-the-Fly Integration of Data from a Spin-Diffusion-Based NMR Experiment into Protein-Ligand Docking.
    Onila I; ten Brink T; Fredriksson K; Codutti L; Mazur A; Griesinger C; Carlomagno T; Exner TE
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Sep; 55(9):1962-72. PubMed ID: 26226383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.
    Kontoyianni M; McClellan LM; Sokol GS
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(3):558-65. PubMed ID: 14736237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. How much NMR data is required to determine a protein-ligand complex structure?
    Schieborr U; Vogtherr M; Elshorst B; Betz M; Grimme S; Pescatore B; Langer T; Saxena K; Schwalbe H
    Chembiochem; 2005 Oct; 6(10):1891-8. PubMed ID: 16013076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. SKATE: a docking program that decouples systematic sampling from scoring.
    Feng JA; Marshall GR
    J Comput Chem; 2010 Nov; 31(14):2540-54. PubMed ID: 20740553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Exploring the stability of ligand binding modes to proteins by molecular dynamics simulations.
    Liu K; Watanabe E; Kokubo H
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Feb; 31(2):201-211. PubMed ID: 28074360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Rescoring ligand docking poses.
    Zhong S; Zhang Y; Xiu Z
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2010 May; 13(3):326-34. PubMed ID: 20443166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Protein-specific scoring method for ligand discovery.
    Lu IL; Wang H
    J Comput Biol; 2012 Nov; 19(11):1215-26. PubMed ID: 23075003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Rapid protein-ligand costructures using chemical shift perturbations.
    Stark J; Powers R
    J Am Chem Soc; 2008 Jan; 130(2):535-45. PubMed ID: 18088118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions Derived from Rigid and Flexible Decoy Structures: Evaluation with the 2013 and 2014 CSAR Benchmarks.
    Yan C; Grinter SZ; Merideth BR; Ma Z; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1013-21. PubMed ID: 26389744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.