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 *

402 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20730182)

  • 1. Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions.
    Huang SY; Grinter SZ; Zou X
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2010 Oct; 12(40):12899-908. PubMed ID: 20730182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An Overview of Scoring Functions Used for Protein-Ligand Interactions in Molecular Docking.
    Li J; Fu A; Zhang L
    Interdiscip Sci; 2019 Jun; 11(2):320-328. PubMed ID: 30877639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
    Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
    Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening.
    Zavodszky MI; Sanschagrin PC; Korde RS; Kuhn LA
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Dec; 16(12):883-902. PubMed ID: 12825621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
    Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Int J Mol Sci; 2010 Aug; 11(8):3016-34. PubMed ID: 21152288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction.
    Wang R; Lai L; Wang S
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Jan; 16(1):11-26. PubMed ID: 12197663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges.
    Sousa SF; Fernandes PA; Ramos MJ
    Proteins; 2006 Oct; 65(1):15-26. PubMed ID: 16862531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
    Warren GL; Andrews CW; Capelli AM; Clarke B; LaLonde J; Lambert MH; Lindvall M; Nevins N; Semus SF; Senger S; Tedesco G; Wall ID; Woolven JM; Peishoff CE; Head MS
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?
    Korb O; Ten Brink T; Victor Paul Raj FR; Keil M; Exner TE
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Feb; 26(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 22231069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions by Considering Binding Affinity Information.
    Zhao X; Li H; Zhang K; Huang SY
    J Phys Chem B; 2023 Oct; 127(42):9021-9034. PubMed ID: 37822259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
    Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein-ligand docking.
    Baek M; Shin WH; Chung HW; Seok C
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Jul; 31(7):653-666. PubMed ID: 28623486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. AutoDockFR: Advances in Protein-Ligand Docking with Explicitly Specified Binding Site Flexibility.
    Ravindranath PA; Forli S; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ; Sanner MF
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2015 Dec; 11(12):e1004586. PubMed ID: 26629955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set.
    Li Y; Liu Z; Li J; Han L; Liu J; Zhao Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1700-16. PubMed ID: 24716849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.