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 *

245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20968314)

  • 1. Binding energy landscape analysis helps to discriminate true hits from high-scoring decoys in virtual screening.
    Wei D; Zheng H; Su N; Deng M; Lai L
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Oct; 50(10):1855-64. PubMed ID: 20968314
    [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. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
    Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening.
    Yang JM; Chen YF; Shen TW; Kristal BS; Hsu DF
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(4):1134-46. PubMed ID: 16045308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio of scoring functions for protein--ligand docking.
    Seifert MH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):602-12. PubMed ID: 18293951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Combining docking, scoring and molecular field analyses to probe influenza neuraminidase-ligand interactions.
    Abu Hammad AM; Afifi FU; Taha MO
    J Mol Graph Model; 2007 Sep; 26(2):443-56. PubMed ID: 17360207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. FURSMASA: a new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD-averaged potential energy grid and a solvent-accessible surface area term with parameters GA fit to experimental data.
    Pearlman DA; Rao BG; Charifson P
    Proteins; 2008 May; 71(3):1519-38. PubMed ID: 18300249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
    Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
    [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. 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]  

  • 12. Protein-ligand binding affinity predictions by implicit solvent simulations: a tool for lead optimization?
    Michel J; Verdonk ML; Essex JW
    J Med Chem; 2006 Dec; 49(25):7427-39. PubMed ID: 17149872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 5. Force-field-based prediction of binding affinities of ligands to proteins.
    Englebienne P; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2564-71. PubMed ID: 19928836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. FLAP: GRID molecular interaction fields in virtual screening. validation using the DUD data set.
    Cross S; Baroni M; Carosati E; Benedetti P; Clementi S
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Aug; 50(8):1442-50. PubMed ID: 20690627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Postprocessing of protein-ligand docking poses using linear response MM-PB/SA: application to Wee1 kinase inhibitors.
    Wichapong K; Lawson M; Pianwanit S; Kokpol S; Sippl W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Sep; 50(9):1574-88. PubMed ID: 20712342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 1. Exploring the parameter space.
    Naïm M; Bhat S; Rankin KN; Dennis S; Chowdhury SF; Siddiqi I; Drabik P; Sulea T; Bayly CI; Jakalian A; Purisima EO
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(1):122-33. PubMed ID: 17238257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Normalizing molecular docking rankings using virtually generated decoys.
    Wallach I; Jaitly N; Nguyen K; Schapira M; Lilien R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Aug; 51(8):1817-30. PubMed ID: 21699246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Can the energy gap in the protein-ligand binding energy landscape be used as a descriptor in virtual ligand screening?
    Grigoryan AV; Wang H; Cardozo TJ
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e46532. PubMed ID: 23071584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.