BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19007114)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking.
    Thomsen R; Christensen MH
    J Med Chem; 2006 Jun; 49(11):3315-21. PubMed ID: 16722650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
    Sándor M; Kiss R; Keseru GM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
    Warren GL; Andrews CW; Capelli AM; Clarke B; LaLonde J; Lambert MH; Lindvall M; Nevins N; Semus SF; Senger S; Tedesco G; Wall ID; Woolven JM; Peishoff CE; Head MS
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.
    Kellenberger E; Rodrigo J; Muller P; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2004 Nov; 57(2):225-42. PubMed ID: 15340911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. SeleX-CS: a new consensus scoring algorithm for hit discovery and lead optimization.
    Bar-Haim S; Aharon A; Ben-Moshe T; Marantz Y; Senderowitz H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Mar; 49(3):623-33. PubMed ID: 19231809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database.
    Plewczynski D; Łaźniewski M; Augustyniak R; Ginalski K
    J Comput Chem; 2011 Mar; 32(4):742-55. PubMed ID: 20812323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock.
    Rao SN; Head MS; Kulkarni A; LaLonde JM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2159-71. PubMed ID: 17985863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes.
    Li X; Li Y; Cheng T; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Comput Chem; 2010 Aug; 31(11):2109-25. PubMed ID: 20127741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 64.