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 *

795 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23237273)

  • 1. Incorporating backbone flexibility in MedusaDock improves ligand-binding pose prediction in the CSAR2011 docking benchmark.
    Ding F; Dokholyan NV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1871-9. PubMed ID: 23237273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. CSAR Benchmark of Flexible MedusaDock in Affinity Prediction and Nativelike Binding Pose Selection.
    Nedumpully-Govindan P; Jemec DB; Ding F
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1042-52. PubMed ID: 26252196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
    Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Modeling loop backbone flexibility in receptor-ligand docking simulations.
    Flick J; Tristram F; Wenzel W
    J Comput Chem; 2012 Dec; 33(31):2504-15. PubMed ID: 22886372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A scalable and accurate method for classifying protein-ligand binding geometries using a MapReduce approach.
    Estrada T; Zhang B; Cicotti P; Armen RS; Taufer M
    Comput Biol Med; 2012 Jul; 42(7):758-71. PubMed ID: 22658682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations.
    Claussen H; Buning C; Rarey M; Lengauer T
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Apr; 308(2):377-95. PubMed ID: 11327774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Systematic and efficient side chain optimization for molecular docking using a cheapest-path procedure.
    Schumann M; Armen RS
    J Comput Chem; 2013 May; 34(14):1258-69. PubMed ID: 23420703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Modeling and selection of flexible proteins for structure-based drug design: backbone and side chain movements in p38 MAPK.
    Subramanian J; Sharma S; B-Rao C
    ChemMedChem; 2008 Feb; 3(2):336-44. PubMed ID: 18081134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Investigation on the effect of key water molecules on docking performance in CSARdock exercise.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1880-92. PubMed ID: 23617355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. RosettaLigand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility.
    Davis IW; Baker D
    J Mol Biol; 2009 Jan; 385(2):381-92. PubMed ID: 19041878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.
    Carlson HA; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Stuckey JA; Ahmed A; Convery MA; Somers DO; Kranz M; Elkins PA; Cui G; Peishoff CE; Lambert MH; Dunbar JB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1063-77. PubMed ID: 27149958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. FDS: flexible ligand and receptor docking with a continuum solvent model and soft-core energy function.
    Taylor RD; Jewsbury PJ; Essex JW
    J Comput Chem; 2003 Oct; 24(13):1637-56. PubMed ID: 12926007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Protein-ligand docking accounting for receptor side chain and global flexibility in normal modes: evaluation on kinase inhibitor cross docking.
    May A; Zacharias M
    J Med Chem; 2008 Jun; 51(12):3499-506. PubMed ID: 18517186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series.
    Damm-Ganamet KL; Smith RD; Dunbar JB; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1853-70. PubMed ID: 23548044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking.
    Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
    J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 40.