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 *

282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19445499)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD.
    Verdonk ML; Cole JC; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW; Taylor RD
    Proteins; 2003 Sep; 52(4):609-23. PubMed ID: 12910460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction.
    Velec HF; Gohlke H; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(20):6296-303. PubMed ID: 16190756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 3. Impact of input ligand conformation, protein flexibility, and water molecules on the accuracy of docking programs.
    Corbeil CR; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):997-1009. PubMed ID: 19391631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(2):526-34. PubMed ID: 17295466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Wang S
    J Med Chem; 2003 Jun; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 1. Development and validation of FITTED 1.0.
    Corbeil CR; Englebienne P; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(2):435-49. PubMed ID: 17305329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Development and evaluation of a generic evolutionary method for protein-ligand docking.
    Yang JM
    J Comput Chem; 2004 Apr; 25(6):843-57. PubMed ID: 15011256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes.
    Zhang C; Liu S; Zhu Q; Zhou Y
    J Med Chem; 2005 Apr; 48(7):2325-35. PubMed ID: 15801826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.