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 *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19340588)

  • 1. Effects of protein conformation in docking: improved pose prediction through protein pocket adaptation.
    Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2009 Jun; 23(6):355-74. PubMed ID: 19340588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.
    Cleves AE; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Jun; 29(6):485-509. PubMed ID: 25940276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Surflex-Dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application.
    Spitzer R; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Jun; 26(6):687-99. PubMed ID: 22569590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
    Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Electrostatic-field and surface-shape similarity for virtual screening and pose prediction.
    Cleves AE; Johnson SR; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Oct; 33(10):865-886. PubMed ID: 31650386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.
    Chaput L; Mouawad L
    J Cheminform; 2017 Jun; 9(1):37. PubMed ID: 29086077
    [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. Prediction of ligand binding mode among multiple cross-docking poses by molecular dynamics simulations.
    Liu K; Kokubo H
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Nov; 34(11):1195-1205. PubMed ID: 32869148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5.
    Moustakas DT; Lang PT; Pegg S; Pettersen E; Kuntz ID; Brooijmans N; Rizzo RC
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2006; 20(10-11):601-19. PubMed ID: 17149653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Is it possible to increase hit rates in structure-based virtual screening by pharmacophore filtering? An investigation of the advantages and pitfalls of post-filtering.
    Muthas D; Sabnis YA; Lundborg M; Karlén A
    J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Jun; 26(8):1237-51. PubMed ID: 18203638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.
    Friesner RA; Banks JL; Murphy RB; Halgren TA; Klicic JJ; Mainz DT; Repasky MP; Knoll EH; Shelley M; Perry JK; Shaw DE; Francis P; Shenkin PS
    J Med Chem; 2004 Mar; 47(7):1739-49. PubMed ID: 15027865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Shape similarity guided pose prediction: lessons from D3R Grand Challenge 3.
    Kumar A; Zhang KYJ
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Jan; 33(1):47-59. PubMed ID: 30084081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking.
    Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
    J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A new method for ligand docking to flexible receptors by dual alanine scanning and refinement (SCARE).
    Bottegoni G; Kufareva I; Totrov M; Abagyan R
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2008 May; 22(5):311-25. PubMed ID: 18273556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.