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 *

655 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19795907)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions.
    Gohlke H; Hendlich M; Klebe G
    J Mol Biol; 2000 Jan; 295(2):337-56. PubMed ID: 10623530
    [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. How much NMR data is required to determine a protein-ligand complex structure?
    Schieborr U; Vogtherr M; Elshorst B; Betz M; Grimme S; Pescatore B; Langer T; Saxena K; Schwalbe H
    Chembiochem; 2005 Oct; 6(10):1891-8. PubMed ID: 16013076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Rapid protein-ligand costructures using chemical shift perturbations.
    Stark J; Powers R
    J Am Chem Soc; 2008 Jan; 130(2):535-45. PubMed ID: 18088118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions.
    Paul N; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2002 Jun; 47(4):521-33. PubMed ID: 12001231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Postprocessing of docked protein-ligand complexes using implicit solvation models.
    Lindström A; Edvinsson L; Johansson A; Andersson CD; Andersson IE; Raubacher F; Linusson A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):267-82. PubMed ID: 21309544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Protein-ligand NOE matching: a high-throughput method for binding pose evaluation that does not require protein NMR resonance assignments.
    Constantine KL; Davis ME; Metzler WJ; Mueller L; Claus BL
    J Am Chem Soc; 2006 Jun; 128(22):7252-63. PubMed ID: 16734479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Complementarity of hydrophobic properties in ATP-protein binding: a new criterion to rank docking solutions.
    Pyrkov TV; Kosinsky YA; Arseniev AS; Priestle JP; Jacoby E; Efremov RG
    Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):388-98. PubMed ID: 17094116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
    Muegge I; Martin YC
    J Med Chem; 1999 Mar; 42(5):791-804. PubMed ID: 10072678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions.
    Deng Z; Chuaqui C; Singh J
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan; 47(2):337-44. PubMed ID: 14711306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling.
    Schafferhans A; Klebe G
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Mar; 307(1):407-27. PubMed ID: 11243828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Structural mining: self-consistent design on flexible protein-peptide docking and transferable binding affinity potential.
    Liu Z; Dominy BN; Shakhnovich EI
    J Am Chem Soc; 2004 Jul; 126(27):8515-28. PubMed ID: 15238009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 33.