300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20527883)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening.
Jain AN
J Med Chem; 2004 Feb; 47(4):947-61. PubMed ID: 14761196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex.
Miteva MA; Lee WH; Montes MO; Villoutreix BO
J Med Chem; 2005 Sep; 48(19):6012-22. PubMed ID: 16162004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
