157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18533645)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Efficient virtual screening using multiple protein conformations described as negative images of the ligand-binding site.
Virtanen SI; Pentikäinen OT
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1005-11. PubMed ID: 20504004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers.
Verdonk ML; Mortenson PN; Hall RJ; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2214-25. PubMed ID: 18954138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An anchor-dependent molecular docking process for docking small flexible molecules into rigid protein receptors.
Lin TH; Lin GL
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1638-55. PubMed ID: 18642894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
Spyrakis F; Amadasi A; Fornabaio M; Abraham DJ; Mozzarelli A; Kellogg GE; Cozzini P
Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Automatic clustering of docking poses in virtual screening process using self-organizing map.
Bouvier G; Evrard-Todeschi N; Girault JP; Bertho G
Bioinformatics; 2010 Jan; 26(1):53-60. PubMed ID: 19910307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of protonation, tautomeric, and stereoisomeric states on protein-ligand docking results.
ten Brink T; Exner TE
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1535-46. PubMed ID: 19453150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Complementarity of hydrophobic properties in ATP-protein binding: a new criterion to rank docking solutions.
Pyrkov TV; Kosinsky YA; Arseniev AS; Priestle JP; Jacoby E; Efremov RG
Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):388-98. PubMed ID: 17094116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Virtual screening to enrich a compound collection with CDK2 inhibitors using docking, scoring, and composite scoring models.
Cotesta S; Giordanetto F; Trosset JY; Crivori P; Kroemer RT; Stouten PF; Vulpetti A
Proteins; 2005 Sep; 60(4):629-43. PubMed ID: 16028223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems.
Kellenberger E; Foata N; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1014-25. PubMed ID: 18412328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment.
Verdonk ML; Berdini V; Hartshorn MJ; Mooij WT; Murray CW; Taylor RD; Watson P
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):793-806. PubMed ID: 15154744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.
Friesner RA; Murphy RB; Repasky MP; Frye LL; Greenwood JR; Halgren TA; Sanschagrin PC; Mainz DT
J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(21):6177-96. PubMed ID: 17034125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
