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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20447848)

  • 1. Benchmarking docking and scoring protocol for the identification of potential acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
    Zaheer-ul-Haq ; Halim SA; Uddin R; Madura JD
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Jun; 28(8):870-82. PubMed ID: 20447848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking.
    de Graaf C; Oostenbrink C; Keizers PH; van der Wijst T; Jongejan A; Vermeulen NP
    J Med Chem; 2006 Apr; 49(8):2417-30. PubMed ID: 16610785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Virtual screening to enrich a compound collection with CDK2 inhibitors using docking, scoring, and composite scoring models.
    Cotesta S; Giordanetto F; Trosset JY; Crivori P; Kroemer RT; Stouten PF; Vulpetti A
    Proteins; 2005 Sep; 60(4):629-43. PubMed ID: 16028223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Retrospective docking study of PDE4B ligands and an analysis of the behavior of selected scoring functions.
    Mpamhanga CP; Chen B; McLay IM; Ormsby DL; Lindvall MK
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1061-74. PubMed ID: 16045302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance.
    Sato H; Shewchuk LM; Tang J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.
    Kellenberger E; Rodrigo J; Muller P; Rognan D
    Proteins; 2004 Nov; 57(2):225-42. PubMed ID: 15340911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock.
    Rao SN; Head MS; Kulkarni A; LaLonde JM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2159-71. PubMed ID: 17985863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of scoring functions on enrichment in docking-based virtual screening: an application study on renin inhibitors.
    Krovat EM; Langer T
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):1123-9. PubMed ID: 15154781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Efficient method for high-throughput virtual screening based on flexible docking: discovery of novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
    Mizutani MY; Itai A
    J Med Chem; 2004 Sep; 47(20):4818-28. PubMed ID: 15369385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.