370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19908272)
1. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
Krüger DM; Evers A
ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring.
Zhang Q; Muegge I
J Med Chem; 2006 Mar; 49(5):1536-48. PubMed ID: 16509572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Integrating structure- and ligand-based virtual screening: comparison of individual, parallel, and fused molecular docking and similarity search calculations on multiple targets.
Tan L; Geppert H; Sisay MT; Gütschow M; Bajorath J
ChemMedChem; 2008 Oct; 3(10):1566-71. PubMed ID: 18651695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols.
Evers A; Hessler G; Matter H; Klabunde T
J Med Chem; 2005 Aug; 48(17):5448-65. PubMed ID: 16107144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA
J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Focused library design in GPCR projects on the example of 5-HT(2c) agonists: comparison of structure-based virtual screening with ligand-based search methods.
Bissantz C; Schalon C; Guba W; Stahl M
Proteins; 2005 Dec; 61(4):938-52. PubMed ID: 16224780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment.
Verdonk ML; Berdini V; Hartshorn MJ; Mooij WT; Murray CW; Taylor RD; Watson P
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):793-806. PubMed ID: 15154744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints.
Renner S; Derksen S; Radestock S; Mörchen F
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Considerations in compound database preparation--"hidden" impact on virtual screening results.
Knox AJ; Meegan MJ; Carta G; Lloyd DG
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1908-19. PubMed ID: 16309298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.
McGaughey GB; Sheridan RP; Bayly CI; Culberson JC; Kreatsoulas C; Lindsley S; Maiorov V; Truchon JF; Cornell WD
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(4):1504-19. PubMed ID: 17591764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Ligand bias of scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening.
Jacobsson M; Karlén A
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1334-43. PubMed ID: 16711752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Consensus scoring with feature selection for structure-based virtual screening.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):288-95. PubMed ID: 18229906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening.
Kontoyianni M; Sokol GS; McClellan LM
J Comput Chem; 2005 Jan; 26(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 15526325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
Zavodszky MI; Rohatgi A; Van Voorst JR; Yan H; Kuhn LA
J Mol Recognit; 2009; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors.
Chen H; Lyne PD; Giordanetto F; Lovell T; Li J
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):401-15. PubMed ID: 16426074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
