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 *

426 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19685924)

  • 1. LigMatch: a multiple structure-based ligand matching method for 3D virtual screening.
    Kinnings SL; Jackson RM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep; 49(9):2056-66. PubMed ID: 19685924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods.
    Venkatraman V; Pérez-Nueno VI; Mavridis L; Ritchie DW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2079-93. PubMed ID: 21090728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set.
    Cheeseright TJ; Mackey MD; Melville JL; Vinter JG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2108-17. PubMed ID: 18991371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. ReverseScreen3D: a structure-based ligand matching method to identify protein targets.
    Kinnings SL; Jackson RM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Mar; 51(3):624-34. PubMed ID: 21361385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Unconventional 2D shape similarity method affords comparable enrichment as a 3D shape method in virtual screening experiments.
    Ebalunode JO; Zheng W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1313-20. PubMed ID: 19480404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.
    Giganti D; Guillemain H; Spadoni JL; Nilges M; Zagury JF; Montes M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):992-1004. PubMed ID: 20527883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 1. Method and assessment of virtual screening.
    Liu X; Jiang H; Li H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2372-85. PubMed ID: 21819157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. VS-APPLE: A Virtual Screening Algorithm Using Promiscuous Protein-Ligand Complexes.
    Okuno T; Kato K; Terada TP; Sasai M; Chikenji G
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jun; 55(6):1108-19. PubMed ID: 26057716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rapid shape-based ligand alignment and virtual screening method based on atom/feature-pair similarities and volume overlap scoring.
    Sastry GM; Dixon SL; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Oct; 51(10):2455-66. PubMed ID: 21870862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set.
    Tiikkainen P; Markt P; Wolber G; Kirchmair J; Distinto S; Poso A; Kallioniemi O
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2168-78. PubMed ID: 19799417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods.
    Duan J; Dixon SL; Lowrie JF; Sherman W
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Sep; 29(2):157-70. PubMed ID: 20579912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. SABRE: ligand/structure-based virtual screening approach using consensus molecular-shape pattern recognition.
    Wei NN; Hamza A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):338-46. PubMed ID: 24328054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Performance evaluation of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods in virtual screening.
    Hu G; Kuang G; Xiao W; Li W; Liu G; Tang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 May; 52(5):1103-13. PubMed ID: 22551340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ligand-target interaction-based weighting of substructures for virtual screening.
    Crisman TJ; Sisay MT; Bajorath J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct; 48(10):1955-64. PubMed ID: 18821751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using consensus-shape clustering to identify promiscuous ligands and protein targets and to choose the right query for shape-based virtual screening.
    Pérez-Nueno VI; Ritchie DW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Jun; 51(6):1233-48. PubMed ID: 21604699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Novel 2D fingerprints for ligand-based virtual screening.
    Ewing T; Baber JC; Feher M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2423-31. PubMed ID: 17125184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. FieldChopper, a new tool for automatic model generation and virtual screening based on molecular fields.
    Kalliokoski T; Ronkko T; Poso A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Jun; 48(6):1131-7. PubMed ID: 18489083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.