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)

  • 41. High-Confidence Protein-Ligand Complex Modeling by NMR-Guided Docking Enables Early Hit Optimization.
    Proudfoot A; Bussiere DE; Lingel A
    J Am Chem Soc; 2017 Dec; 139(49):17824-17833. PubMed ID: 29190085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Slynko I; Da Silva F; Bret G; Rognan D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):669-683. PubMed ID: 27480696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Improving binding mode and binding affinity predictions of docking by ligand-based search of protein conformations: evaluation in D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Xu X; Yan C; Zou X
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Aug; 31(8):689-699. PubMed ID: 28668990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Wang S
    J Med Chem; 2003 Jun; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
    Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
    Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Prediction of protein-ligand complex structure by docking software guided by other complex structures.
    Fukunishi Y; Nakamura H
    J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Feb; 26(6):1030-3. PubMed ID: 17692546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Using chemical shift perturbation to characterise ligand binding.
    Williamson MP
    Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc; 2013 Aug; 73():1-16. PubMed ID: 23962882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. ProPose: a docking engine based on a fully configurable protein-ligand interaction model.
    Seifert MH; Schmitt F; Herz T; Kramer B
    J Mol Model; 2004 Dec; 10(5-6):342-57. PubMed ID: 15597203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(5):1858-67. PubMed ID: 17685604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Protein-ligand docking guided by ligand pharmacophore-mapping experiment by NMR.
    Fukunishi Y; Mizukoshi Y; Takeuchi K; Shimada I; Takahashi H; Nakamura H
    J Mol Graph Model; 2011 Nov; 31():20-7. PubMed ID: 21940186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Detecting the native ligand orientation by interfacial rigidity: SiteInterlock.
    Raschka S; Bemister-Buffington J; Kuhn LA
    Proteins; 2016 Dec; 84(12):1888-1901. PubMed ID: 27699847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Protein-ligand NOE matching: a high-throughput method for binding pose evaluation that does not require protein NMR resonance assignments.
    Constantine KL; Davis ME; Metzler WJ; Mueller L; Claus BL
    J Am Chem Soc; 2006 Jun; 128(22):7252-63. PubMed ID: 16734479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A combination of spin diffusion methods for the determination of protein-ligand complex structural ensembles.
    Pilger J; Mazur A; Monecke P; Schreuder H; Elshorst B; Bartoschek S; Langer T; Schiffer A; Krimm I; Wegstroth M; Lee D; Hessler G; Wendt KU; Becker S; Griesinger C
    Angew Chem Int Ed Engl; 2015 May; 54(22):6511-5. PubMed ID: 25877959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction.
    Brylinski M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3097-112. PubMed ID: 24171431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio of scoring functions for protein--ligand docking.
    Seifert MH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):602-12. PubMed ID: 18293951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Rapid Design of Knowledge-Based Scoring Potentials for Enrichment of Near-Native Geometries in Protein-Protein Docking.
    Sasse A; de Vries SJ; Schindler CE; de Beauchêne IC; Zacharias M
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0170625. PubMed ID: 28118389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.
    Cleves AE; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Jun; 29(6):485-509. PubMed ID: 25940276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Validation of the binding site structure of the cellular retinol-binding protein (CRBP) by ligand NMR chemical shift perturbations.
    Wang B; Merz KM
    J Am Chem Soc; 2005 Apr; 127(15):5310-1. PubMed ID: 15826155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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