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 *

454 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23016847)

  • 1. Scoring functions for prediction of protein-ligand interactions.
    Wang JC; Lin JH
    Curr Pharm Des; 2013; 19(12):2174-82. PubMed ID: 23016847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
    Warren GL; Andrews CW; Capelli AM; Clarke B; LaLonde J; Lambert MH; Lindvall M; Nevins N; Semus SF; Senger S; Tedesco G; Wall ID; Woolven JM; Peishoff CE; Head MS
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. Computational approaches for ligand discovery and design in class-A G protein- coupled receptors.
    Rodríguez D; Gutiérrez-de-Terán H
    Curr Pharm Des; 2013; 19(12):2216-36. PubMed ID: 23016842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints.
    Liu J; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Li Y; Wang R
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28720122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening.
    Zavodszky MI; Sanschagrin PC; Korde RS; Kuhn LA
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Dec; 16(12):883-902. PubMed ID: 12825621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development.
    Rajamani R; Good AC
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2007 May; 10(3):308-15. PubMed ID: 17554857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
    Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
    Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
    Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
    Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction.
    Brylinski M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3097-112. PubMed ID: 24171431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Molecular modeling of hydration in drug design.
    Mancera RL
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2007 May; 10(3):275-80. PubMed ID: 17554853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein-ligand docking.
    Baek M; Shin WH; Chung HW; Seok C
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Jul; 31(7):653-666. PubMed ID: 28623486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Empirical Scoring Functions for Affinity Prediction of Protein-ligand Complexes.
    Pason LP; Sotriffer CA
    Mol Inform; 2016 Dec; 35(11-12):541-548. PubMed ID: 27870243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. PLHINT: A knowledge-driven computational approach based on the intermolecular H bond interactions at the protein-ligand interface from docking solutions.
    Kumar SP
    J Mol Graph Model; 2018 Jan; 79():194-212. PubMed ID: 29241118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.