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 *

303 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]
    of 16.