306 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21819157)
1. SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 1. Method and assessment of virtual screening.
Liu X; Jiang H; Li H
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2372-85. PubMed ID: 21819157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. LigMatch: a multiple structure-based ligand matching method for 3D virtual screening.
Kinnings SL; Jackson RM
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep; 49(9):2056-66. PubMed ID: 19685924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.
Giganti D; Guillemain H; Spadoni JL; Nilges M; Zagury JF; Montes M
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):992-1004. PubMed ID: 20527883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 2. Prospective case study in the discovery of diverse p90 ribosomal S6 protein kinase 2 inhibitors to suppress cell migration.
Lu W; Liu X; Cao X; Xue M; Liu K; Zhao Z; Shen X; Jiang H; Xu Y; Huang J; Li H
J Med Chem; 2011 May; 54(10):3564-74. PubMed ID: 21488662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Unconventional 2D shape similarity method affords comparable enrichment as a 3D shape method in virtual screening experiments.
Ebalunode JO; Zheng W
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1313-20. PubMed ID: 19480404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Novel approach to structure-based pharmacophore search using computational geometry and shape matching techniques.
Ebalunode JO; Ouyang Z; Liang J; Zheng W
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):889-901. PubMed ID: 18396858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring.
Zhang Q; Muegge I
J Med Chem; 2006 Mar; 49(5):1536-48. PubMed ID: 16509572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set.
von Korff M; Freyss J; Sander T
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Feb; 49(2):209-31. PubMed ID: 19434824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance evaluation of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods in virtual screening.
Hu G; Kuang G; Xiao W; Li W; Liu G; Tang Y
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 May; 52(5):1103-13. PubMed ID: 22551340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comprehensive comparative assessment of 3D molecular similarity tools in ligand-based virtual screening.
Jiang Z; Xu J; Yan A; Wang L
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Nov; 22(6):. PubMed ID: 34151363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Rapid shape-based ligand alignment and virtual screening method based on atom/feature-pair similarities and volume overlap scoring.
Sastry GM; Dixon SL; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Oct; 51(10):2455-66. PubMed ID: 21870862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 3D QSAR pharmacophore based virtual screening and molecular docking for identification of potential HSP90 inhibitors.
Sakkiah S; Thangapandian S; John S; Kwon YJ; Lee KW
Eur J Med Chem; 2010 Jun; 45(6):2132-40. PubMed ID: 20206418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multiple-ligand-based virtual screening: methods and applications of the MTree approach.
Hessler G; Zimmermann M; Matter H; Evers A; Naumann T; Lengauer T; Rarey M
J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(21):6575-84. PubMed ID: 16220974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.
McGaughey GB; Sheridan RP; Bayly CI; Culberson JC; Kreatsoulas C; Lindsley S; Maiorov V; Truchon JF; Cornell WD
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(4):1504-19. PubMed ID: 17591764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimization of high throughput virtual screening by combining shape-matching and docking methods.
Lee HS; Choi J; Kufareva I; Abagyan R; Filikov A; Yang Y; Yoon S
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar; 48(3):489-97. PubMed ID: 18302357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fast and efficient in silico 3D screening: toward maximum computational efficiency of pharmacophore-based and shape-based approaches.
Kirchmair J; Ristic S; Eder K; Markt P; Wolber G; Laggner C; Langer T
J Chem Inf Model; 2007; 47(6):2182-96. PubMed ID: 17929799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
Zavodszky MI; Rohatgi A; Van Voorst JR; Yan H; Kuhn LA
J Mol Recognit; 2009; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods.
Venkatraman V; Pérez-Nueno VI; Mavridis L; Ritchie DW
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2079-93. PubMed ID: 21090728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. SABRE: ligand/structure-based virtual screening approach using consensus molecular-shape pattern recognition.
Wei NN; Hamza A
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):338-46. PubMed ID: 24328054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
Krüger DM; Evers A
ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
