215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21644546)
1. Evaluation of several two-step scoring functions based on linear interaction energy, effective ligand size, and empirical pair potentials for prediction of protein-ligand binding geometry and free energy.
Rahaman O; Estrada TP; Doren DJ; Taufer M; Brooks CL; Armen RS
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2047-65. PubMed ID: 21644546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 scoring exercise.
Sulea T; Cui Q; Purisima EO
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2066-81. PubMed ID: 21714553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Inclusion of solvation and entropy in the knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions.
Huang SY; Zou X
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Feb; 50(2):262-73. PubMed ID: 20088605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Advances in Docking.
Sulimov VB; Kutov DC; Sulimov AV
Curr Med Chem; 2019; 26(42):7555-7580. PubMed ID: 30182836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins.
Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Scoring functions for prediction of protein-ligand interactions.
Wang JC; Lin JH
Curr Pharm Des; 2013; 19(12):2174-82. PubMed ID: 23016847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions.
Fan H; Schneidman-Duhovny D; Irwin JJ; Dong G; Shoichet BK; Sali A
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Dec; 51(12):3078-92. PubMed ID: 22014038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
Muegge I; Martin YC
J Med Chem; 1999 Mar; 42(5):791-804. PubMed ID: 10072678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An electronic environment and contact direction sensitive scoring function for predicting affinities of protein-ligand complexes in Contour(®).
Lindblom PR; Wu G; Liu Z; Jim KC; Baldwin JJ; Gregg RE; Claremon DA; Singh SB
J Mol Graph Model; 2014 Sep; 53():118-127. PubMed ID: 25123650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. SFCscore(RF): a random forest-based scoring function for improved affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes.
Zilian D; Sotriffer CA
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1923-33. PubMed ID: 23705795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
