239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22183538)
1. How to benchmark methods for structure-based virtual screening of large compound libraries.
Christofferson AJ; Huang N
Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 819():187-95. PubMed ID: 22183538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
Cross JB; Thompson DC; Rai BK; Baber JC; Fan KY; Hu Y; Humblet C
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Toward fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: a massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area rescoring to improve enrichment.
Zhang X; Wong SE; Lightstone FC
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):324-37. PubMed ID: 24358939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Virtual screening of compound libraries.
Cerqueira NM; Sousa SF; Fernandes PA; Ramos MJ
Methods Mol Biol; 2009; 572():57-70. PubMed ID: 20694685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of ligand-based tautomer and protomer prediction on structure-based virtual screening.
Kalliokoski T; Salo HS; Lahtela-Kakkonen M; Poso A
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Dec; 49(12):2742-8. PubMed ID: 19928753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Virtual screening for R-groups, including predicted pIC50 contributions, within large structural databases, using Topomer CoMFA.
Cramer RD; Cruz P; Stahl G; Curtiss WC; Campbell B; Masek BB; Soltanshahi F
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2180-95. PubMed ID: 18956863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Efficient virtual screening using multiple protein conformations described as negative images of the ligand-binding site.
Virtanen SI; Pentikäinen OT
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1005-11. PubMed ID: 20504004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using consensus-shape clustering to identify promiscuous ligands and protein targets and to choose the right query for shape-based virtual screening.
Pérez-Nueno VI; Ritchie DW
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Jun; 51(6):1233-48. PubMed ID: 21604699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. REPROVIS-DB: a benchmark system for ligand-based virtual screening derived from reproducible prospective applications.
Ripphausen P; Wassermann AM; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Oct; 51(10):2467-73. PubMed ID: 21902278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems.
Kellenberger E; Foata N; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1014-25. PubMed ID: 18412328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Considerations in compound database preparation--"hidden" impact on virtual screening results.
Knox AJ; Meegan MJ; Carta G; Lloyd DG
J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1908-19. PubMed ID: 16309298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. A knowledge-based weighting approach to ligand-based virtual screening.
Stiefl N; Zaliani A
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(2):587-96. PubMed ID: 16562987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Boosting virtual screening enrichments with data fusion: coalescing hits from two-dimensional fingerprints, shape, and docking.
Sastry GM; Inakollu VS; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jul; 53(7):1531-42. PubMed ID: 23782297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Virtual screening in drug design.
Lill M
Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 993():1-12. PubMed ID: 23568460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set.
Tiikkainen P; Markt P; Wolber G; Kirchmair J; Distinto S; Poso A; Kallioniemi O
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2168-78. PubMed ID: 19799417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
