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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21755952)

  • 1. Construction and test of ligand decoy sets using MDock: community structure-activity resource benchmarks for binding mode prediction.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2107-14. PubMed ID: 21755952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions Derived from Rigid and Flexible Decoy Structures: Evaluation with the 2013 and 2014 CSAR Benchmarks.
    Yan C; Grinter SZ; Merideth BR; Ma Z; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1013-21. PubMed ID: 26389744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys.
    Dunbar JB; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Ahmed A; Esposito EX; Delproposto J; Chinnaswamy K; Kang YN; Kubish G; Gestwicki JE; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1842-52. PubMed ID: 23617227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.
    Carlson HA; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Stuckey JA; Ahmed A; Convery MA; Somers DO; Kranz M; Elkins PA; Cui G; Peishoff CE; Lambert MH; Dunbar JB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1063-77. PubMed ID: 27149958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks.
    Yan Z; Wang J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Mar; 30(3):219-27. PubMed ID: 26879323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Consensus scoring for enriching near-native structures from protein-protein docking decoys.
    Liang S; Meroueh SO; Wang G; Qiu C; Zhou Y
    Proteins; 2009 May; 75(2):397-403. PubMed ID: 18831053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automated large-scale file preparation, docking, and scoring: evaluation of ITScore and STScore using the 2012 Community Structure-Activity Resource benchmark.
    Grinter SZ; Yan C; Huang SY; Jiang L; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1905-14. PubMed ID: 23656179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Decoys for docking.
    Graves AP; Brenk R; Shoichet BK
    J Med Chem; 2005 Jun; 48(11):3714-28. PubMed ID: 15916423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function for protein-protein recognition.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2008 Aug; 72(2):557-79. PubMed ID: 18247354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. More efficient screening of protein-protein complex model structures for reducing the number of candidates.
    Takemura K; Kitao A
    Biophys Physicobiol; 2019; 16():295-303. PubMed ID: 31984184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Comput Chem; 2006 Nov; 27(15):1876-82. PubMed ID: 16983671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimized distance-dependent atom-pair-based potential DOOP for protein structure prediction.
    Chae MH; Krull F; Knapp EW
    Proteins; 2015 May; 83(5):881-90. PubMed ID: 25693513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Scoring and lessons learned with the CSAR benchmark using an improved iterative knowledge-based scoring function.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2097-106. PubMed ID: 21830787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.
    Proctor EA; Yin S; Tropsha A; Dokholyan NV
    Biophys J; 2012 Jan; 102(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 22225808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.