871 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18465849)
1. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Validation of an automated procedure for the prediction of relative free energies of binding on a set of aldose reductase inhibitors.
Ferrari AM; Degliesposti G; Sgobba M; Rastelli G
Bioorg Med Chem; 2007 Dec; 15(24):7865-77. PubMed ID: 17870536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Postprocessing of docked protein-ligand complexes using implicit solvation models.
Lindström A; Edvinsson L; Johansson A; Andersson CD; Andersson IE; Raubacher F; Linusson A
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):267-82. PubMed ID: 21309544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases.
Floriano WB; Vaidehi N; Zamanakos G; Goddard WA
J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(1):56-71. PubMed ID: 14695820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Toward fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: a massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area rescoring to improve enrichment.
Zhang X; Wong SE; Lightstone FC
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):324-37. PubMed ID: 24358939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
Cross JB; Thompson DC; Rai BK; Baber JC; Fan KY; Hu Y; Humblet C
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 5. Force-field-based prediction of binding affinities of ligands to proteins.
Englebienne P; Moitessier N
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2564-71. PubMed ID: 19928836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Testing assumptions and hypotheses for rescoring success in protein-ligand docking.
O'Boyle NM; Liebeschuetz JW; Cole JC
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Aug; 49(8):1871-8. PubMed ID: 19645429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Binding estimation after refinement, a new automated procedure for the refinement and rescoring of docked ligands in virtual screening.
Rastelli G; Degliesposti G; Del Rio A; Sgobba M
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2009 Mar; 73(3):283-6. PubMed ID: 19207463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Structural artifacts in protein-ligand X-ray structures: implications for the development of docking scoring functions.
Søndergaard CR; Garrett AE; Carstensen T; Pollastri G; Nielsen JE
J Med Chem; 2009 Sep; 52(18):5673-84. PubMed ID: 19711919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using buriedness to improve discrimination between actives and inactives in docking.
O'Boyle NM; Brewerton SC; Taylor R
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Jun; 48(6):1269-78. PubMed ID: 18533645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Improving VEGFR-2 docking-based screening by pharmacophore postfiltering and similarity search postprocessing.
Planesas JM; Claramunt RM; Teixidó J; Borrell JI; Pérez-Nueno VI
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Apr; 51(4):777-87. PubMed ID: 21417262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. FURSMASA: a new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD-averaged potential energy grid and a solvent-accessible surface area term with parameters GA fit to experimental data.
Pearlman DA; Rao BG; Charifson P
Proteins; 2008 May; 71(3):1519-38. PubMed ID: 18300249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set.
Cheeseright TJ; Mackey MD; Melville JL; Vinter JG
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2108-17. PubMed ID: 18991371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
