538 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20812323)
1. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database.
Plewczynski D; Łaźniewski M; Augustyniak R; Ginalski K
J Comput Chem; 2011 Mar; 32(4):742-55. PubMed ID: 20812323
[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. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes.
Li X; Li Y; Cheng T; Liu Z; Wang R
J Comput Chem; 2010 Aug; 31(11):2109-25. PubMed ID: 20127741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. VoteDock: consensus docking method for prediction of protein-ligand interactions.
Plewczynski D; Łaźniewski M; von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
J Comput Chem; 2011 Mar; 32(4):568-81. PubMed ID: 20812324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Protein-ligand docking using mutually orthogonal Latin squares (MOLSDOCK).
Viji SN; Prasad PA; Gautham N
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Dec; 49(12):2687-94. PubMed ID: 19968302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 3. Impact of input ligand conformation, protein flexibility, and water molecules on the accuracy of docking programs.
Corbeil CR; Moitessier N
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):997-1009. PubMed ID: 19391631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(5):1858-67. PubMed ID: 17685604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening.
Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(2):526-34. PubMed ID: 17295466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Critical assessment of the automated AutoDock as a new docking tool for virtual screening.
Park H; Lee J; Lee S
Proteins; 2006 Nov; 65(3):549-54. PubMed ID: 16988956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
