185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22639078)
1. Multiple ligand docking by Glide: implications for virtual second-site screening.
Vass M; Tarcsay Á; Keserű GM
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Jul; 26(7):821-34. PubMed ID: 22639078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Structure-Based Site of Metabolism (SOM) Prediction of Ligand for CYP3A4 Enzyme: Comparison of Glide XP and Induced Fit Docking (IFD).
Lokwani DK; Sarkate AP; Karnik KS; Nikalje APG; Seijas JA
Molecules; 2020 Apr; 25(7):. PubMed ID: 32244772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
Sándor M; Kiss R; Keseru GM
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Flexible ligand docking with Glide.
Repasky MP; Shelley M; Friesner RA
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics; 2007 Jun; Chapter 8():Unit 8.12. PubMed ID: 18428795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.
Friesner RA; Murphy RB; Repasky MP; Frye LL; Greenwood JR; Halgren TA; Sanschagrin PC; Mainz DT
J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(21):6177-96. PubMed ID: 17034125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Targeting the NF-κB/IκBα complex via fragment-based E-Pharmacophore virtual screening and binary QSAR models.
Kanan T; Kanan D; Erol I; Yazdi S; Stein M; Durdagi S
J Mol Graph Model; 2019 Jan; 86():264-277. PubMed ID: 30415122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein-ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
Deng N; Flynn WF; Xia J; Vijayan RS; Zhang B; He P; Mentes A; Gallicchio E; Levy RM
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):743-751. PubMed ID: 27562018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.
Chaput L; Mouawad L
J Cheminform; 2017 Jun; 9(1):37. PubMed ID: 29086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Docking performance of the glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: a complete set of glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide.
Repasky MP; Murphy RB; Banks JL; Greenwood JR; Tubert-Brohman I; Bhat S; Friesner RA
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Jun; 26(6):787-99. PubMed ID: 22576241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Energetic analysis of fragment docking and application to structure-based pharmacophore hypothesis generation.
Loving K; Salam NK; Sherman W
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2009 Aug; 23(8):541-54. PubMed ID: 19421721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. GLIMPSED: An Improved Docking Protocol for Cognate Docking.
Rizzi A; Ciacci A; Capelli AM
Mol Inform; 2016 Sep; 35(8-9):350-7. PubMed ID: 27546039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Geometry Optimization Algorithms in Conjunction with the Machine Learning Potential ANI-2x Facilitate the Structure-Based Virtual Screening and Binding Mode Prediction.
Wang L; He X; Ji B; Han F; Niu T; Cai L; Zhai J; Hao D; Wang J
Biomolecules; 2024 May; 14(6):. PubMed ID: 38927052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of fragment docking and scoring with the endothiapepsin model system.
Herbst C; Endres S; Würz R; Sotriffer C
Arch Pharm (Weinheim); 2024 Jun; 357(6):e2400061. PubMed ID: 38631672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Benchmarking different docking protocols for predicting the binding poses of ligands complexed with cyclooxygenase enzymes and screening chemical libraries.
Shamsian S; Sokouti B; Dastmalchi S
Bioimpacts; 2024; 14(2):29955. PubMed ID: 38505677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Molecular Modeling Studies of Novel Fluoroquinolone Molecules.
Allaka TR; Katari NK; Veeramreddy V; Anireddy JS
Curr Drug Discov Technol; 2018; 15(2):109-122. PubMed ID: 28875852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computation-based virtual screening for designing novel antimalarial drugs by targeting falcipain-III: a structure-based drug designing approach.
Kesharwani RK; Singh DV; Misra K
J Vector Borne Dis; 2013; 50(2):93-102. PubMed ID: 23995310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
