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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18533645)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Information theory-based scoring function for the structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity.
    Kulharia M; Goody RS; Jackson RM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct; 48(10):1990-8. PubMed ID: 18767831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. A large-scale computational approach to drug repositioning.
    Li YY; An J; Jones SJ
    Genome Inform; 2006; 17(2):239-47. PubMed ID: 17503396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. S4MPLE--sampler for multiple protein-ligand entities: simultaneous docking of several entities.
    Hoffer L; Horvath D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jan; 53(1):88-102. PubMed ID: 23215156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization.
    Guimarães CR; Cardozo M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):958-70. PubMed ID: 18422307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development.
    Rajamani R; Good AC
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2007 May; 10(3):308-15. PubMed ID: 17554857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Blind docking of 260 protein-ligand complexes with EADock 2.0.
    Grosdidier A; Zoete V; Michielin O
    J Comput Chem; 2009 Oct; 30(13):2021-30. PubMed ID: 19130502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. BALLDock/SLICK: a new method for protein-carbohydrate docking.
    Kerzmann A; Fuhrmann J; Kohlbacher O; Neumann D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1616-25. PubMed ID: 18646839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
    Zavodszky MI; Rohatgi A; Van Voorst JR; Yan H; Kuhn LA
    J Mol Recognit; 2009; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of input differences on the results of docking calculations.
    Feher M; Williams CI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jul; 49(7):1704-14. PubMed ID: 19530660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Novel method for generating structure-based pharmacophores using energetic analysis.
    Salam NK; Nuti R; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2356-68. PubMed ID: 19761201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Steering protein-ligand docking with quantitative NMR chemical shift perturbations.
    González-Ruiz D; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2260-71. PubMed ID: 19795907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Multiple target screening method for robust and accurate in silico ligand screening.
    Fukunishi Y; Mikami Y; Kubota S; Nakamura H
    J Mol Graph Model; 2006 Sep; 25(1):61-70. PubMed ID: 16376595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A statistical rescoring scheme for protein-ligand docking: Consideration of entropic effect.
    Lee J; Seok C
    Proteins; 2008 Feb; 70(3):1074-83. PubMed ID: 18076034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins?
    Englebienne P; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1568-80. PubMed ID: 19445499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.