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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17958410)

  • 1. Consensus adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) models incorporate ligand and receptor conformational variability into tailor-made scoring functions.
    Breu B; Silber K; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2383-400. PubMed ID: 17958410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields.
    Radestock S; Böhm M; Gohlke H
    J Med Chem; 2005 Aug; 48(17):5466-79. PubMed ID: 16107145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling.
    Schafferhans A; Klebe G
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Mar; 307(1):407-27. PubMed ID: 11243828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. AFMoC enhances predictivity of 3D QSAR: a case study with DOXP-reductoisomerase.
    Silber K; Heidler P; Kurz T; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2005 May; 48(10):3547-63. PubMed ID: 15887963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Homology modeling of MCH1 receptor and validation by docking/scoring and protein-aligned CoMFA.
    Abu-Hammad A; Zalloum WA; Zalloum H; Abu-Sheikha G; Taha MO
    Eur J Med Chem; 2009 Jun; 44(6):2583-96. PubMed ID: 19250717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Combining docking, scoring and molecular field analyses to probe influenza neuraminidase-ligand interactions.
    Abu Hammad AM; Afifi FU; Taha MO
    J Mol Graph Model; 2007 Sep; 26(2):443-56. PubMed ID: 17360207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative binding energy analysis considering multiple receptors: a step toward 3D-QSAR models for multiple targets.
    Murcia M; Morreale A; Ortiz AR
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(21):6241-53. PubMed ID: 17034130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Structural requirements for factor Xa inhibition by 3-oxybenzamides with neutral P1 substituents: combining X-ray crystallography, 3D-QSAR, and tailored scoring functions.
    Matter H; Will DW; Nazaré M; Schreuder H; Laux V; Wehner V
    J Med Chem; 2005 May; 48(9):3290-312. PubMed ID: 15857135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effects of variable docking conditions and scoring functions on corresponding protein-aligned comparative molecular field analysis models constructed from diverse human protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitors.
    Taha MO; AlDamen MA
    J Med Chem; 2005 Dec; 48(25):8016-34. PubMed ID: 16335926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. ProPose: steered virtual screening by simultaneous protein-ligand docking and ligand-ligand alignment.
    Seifert MH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(2):449-60. PubMed ID: 15807511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An integrated approach to ligand- and structure-based drug design: development and application to a series of serine protease inhibitors.
    Nicolotti O; Miscioscia TF; Carotti A; Leonetti F; Carotti A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Jun; 48(6):1211-26. PubMed ID: 18540590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Generation of ligand conformations in continuum solvent consistent with protein active site topology: application to thrombin.
    Greenidge PA; Mérette SA; Beck R; Dodson G; Goodwin CA; Scully MF; Spencer J; Weiser J; Deadman JJ
    J Med Chem; 2003 Apr; 46(8):1293-305. PubMed ID: 12672230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Virtual screening and scaffold hopping based on GRID molecular interaction fields.
    Ahlström MM; Ridderström M; Luthman K; Zamora I
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(5):1313-23. PubMed ID: 16180908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Hierarchical PLS modeling for predicting the binding of a comprehensive set of structurally diverse protein-ligand complexes.
    Lindström A; Pettersson F; Almqvist F; Berglund A; Kihlberg J; Linusson A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1154-67. PubMed ID: 16711735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Exploring experimental sources of multiple protein conformations in structure-based drug design.
    Damm KL; Carlson HA
    J Am Chem Soc; 2007 Jul; 129(26):8225-35. PubMed ID: 17555316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Interpretation of scoring functions using 3D molecular fields. Mapping the diacyl-hydrazine-binding pocket of an insect ecdysone receptor.
    Bordas B; Belai I; Lopata A; Szanto Z
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):176-85. PubMed ID: 17238263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Factorising ligand affinity: a combined thermodynamic and crystallographic study of trypsin and thrombin inhibition.
    Dullweber F; Stubbs MT; Musil D; Stürzebecher J; Klebe G
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Oct; 313(3):593-614. PubMed ID: 11676542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.