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)

  • 21. Detecting the native ligand orientation by interfacial rigidity: SiteInterlock.
    Raschka S; Bemister-Buffington J; Kuhn LA
    Proteins; 2016 Dec; 84(12):1888-1901. PubMed ID: 27699847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design: 3. A two-dimensional knowledge-based hydrogen-bonding potential for the prediction of protein-ligand interactions.
    Zheng M; Xiong B; Luo C; Li S; Liu X; Shen Q; Li J; Zhu W; Luo X; Jiang H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Nov; 51(11):2994-3004. PubMed ID: 21999432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Computational methods for calculation of ligand-binding affinity.
    de Azevedo WF; Dias R
    Curr Drug Targets; 2008 Dec; 9(12):1031-9. PubMed ID: 19128212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand interactions: explicit polarizability, quantum mechanics and free energies.
    Bryce RA
    Future Med Chem; 2011 Apr; 3(6):683-98. PubMed ID: 21554075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Virtual high-throughput screening of molecular databases.
    Seifert MH; Kraus J; Kramer B
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2007 May; 10(3):298-307. PubMed ID: 17554856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Molecular descriptors and methods for ligand based virtual high throughput screening in drug discovery.
    Pozzan A
    Curr Pharm Des; 2006; 12(17):2099-110. PubMed ID: 16796558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions.
    Feher M
    Drug Discov Today; 2006 May; 11(9-10):421-8. PubMed ID: 16635804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?
    Korb O; Ten Brink T; Victor Paul Raj FR; Keil M; Exner TE
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Feb; 26(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 22231069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. An Overview of Scoring Functions Used for Protein-Ligand Interactions in Molecular Docking.
    Li J; Fu A; Zhang L
    Interdiscip Sci; 2019 Jun; 11(2):320-328. PubMed ID: 30877639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Molecular Dynamics as a Tool for Virtual Ligand Screening.
    Menchon G; Maveyraud L; Czaplicki G
    Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1762():145-178. PubMed ID: 29594772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Electrostatic-field and surface-shape similarity for virtual screening and pose prediction.
    Cleves AE; Johnson SR; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Oct; 33(10):865-886. PubMed ID: 31650386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.
    Proctor EA; Yin S; Tropsha A; Dokholyan NV
    Biophys J; 2012 Jan; 102(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 22225808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A comparative assessment of ranking accuracies of conventional and machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2012; 9(5):1301-13. PubMed ID: 22411892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Does a more precise chemical description of protein-ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity?
    Ballester PJ; Schreyer A; Blundell TL
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Mar; 54(3):944-55. PubMed ID: 24528282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. CScore: a simple yet effective scoring function for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction using modified CMAC learning architecture.
    Ouyang X; Handoko SD; Kwoh CK
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2011 Dec; 9 Suppl 1():1-14. PubMed ID: 22144250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set.
    Li Y; Liu Z; Li J; Han L; Liu J; Zhao Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1700-16. PubMed ID: 24716849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Toward a unified scoring function for native state discrimination and drug-binding pocket recognition.
    Battisti A; Zamuner S; Sarti E; Laio A
    Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2018 Jun; 20(25):17148-17155. PubMed ID: 29900428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. BgN-Score and BsN-Score: bagging and boosting based ensemble neural networks scoring functions for accurate binding affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):S8. PubMed ID: 25734685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.