248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20459088)
1. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
Sándor M; Kiss R; Keseru GM
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Accuracy assessment of protein-based docking programs against RNA targets.
Li Y; Shen J; Sun X; Li W; Liu G; Tang Y
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1134-46. PubMed ID: 20481574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. RosettaLigand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility.
Davis IW; Baker D
J Mol Biol; 2009 Jan; 385(2):381-92. PubMed ID: 19041878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers.
Verdonk ML; Mortenson PN; Hall RJ; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2214-25. PubMed ID: 18954138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tautomer preference in PDB complexes and its impact on structure-based drug discovery.
Milletti F; Vulpetti A
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1062-74. PubMed ID: 20515065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. SKATE: a docking program that decouples systematic sampling from scoring.
Feng JA; Marshall GR
J Comput Chem; 2010 Nov; 31(14):2540-54. PubMed ID: 20740553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Implicit flexibility in protein docking: cross-docking and local refinement.
Król M; Chaleil RA; Tournier AL; Bates PA
Proteins; 2007 Dec; 69(4):750-7. PubMed ID: 17671977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking.
Yang JM; Chen CC
Proteins; 2004 May; 55(2):288-304. PubMed ID: 15048822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.
Huang SY; Zou X
Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
