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.
26. 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]
27. PSI-DOCK: towards highly efficient and accurate flexible ligand docking. Pei J; Wang Q; Liu Z; Li Q; Yang K; Lai L Proteins; 2006 Mar; 62(4):934-46. PubMed ID: 16395666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Development and evaluation of a generic evolutionary method for protein-ligand docking. Yang JM J Comput Chem; 2004 Apr; 25(6):843-57. PubMed ID: 15011256 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. E-novo: an automated workflow for efficient structure-based lead optimization. Pearce BC; Langley DR; Kang J; Huang H; Kulkarni A J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jul; 49(7):1797-809. PubMed ID: 19552372 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking. Yang JM; Chen CC Proteins; 2004 May; 55(2):288-304. PubMed ID: 15048822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Role of binding entropy in the refinement of protein-ligand docking predictions: analysis based on the use of 11 scoring functions. Ruvinsky AM J Comput Chem; 2007 Jun; 28(8):1364-72. PubMed ID: 17342720 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Estimating protein-ligand binding free energy: atomic solvation parameters for partition coefficient and solvation free energy calculation. Pei J; Wang Q; Zhou J; Lai L Proteins; 2004 Dec; 57(4):651-64. PubMed ID: 15390269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Binding energy landscape analysis helps to discriminate true hits from high-scoring decoys in virtual screening. Wei D; Zheng H; Su N; Deng M; Lai L J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Oct; 50(10):1855-64. PubMed ID: 20968314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Specific empirical free energy function for automated docking of carbohydrates to proteins. Laederach A; Reilly PJ J Comput Chem; 2003 Nov; 24(14):1748-57. PubMed ID: 12964193 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance. Sato H; Shewchuk LM; Tang J J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. SODOCK: swarm optimization for highly flexible protein-ligand docking. Chen HM; Liu BF; Huang HL; Hwang SF; Ho SY J Comput Chem; 2007 Jan; 28(2):612-23. PubMed ID: 17186483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. Korb O; Stützle T; Exner TE J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jan; 49(1):84-96. PubMed ID: 19125657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Mooij WT; Verdonk ML Proteins; 2005 Nov; 61(2):272-87. PubMed ID: 16106379 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]