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 *

376 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23548044)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.
    Zhu X; Shin WH; Kim H; Kihara D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1088-99. PubMed ID: 26691286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2013: Evaluation of Results from a Combined Computational Protein Design, Docking, and Scoring/Ranking Challenge.
    Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Dunbar JB; Ahmed A; Chinnaswamy K; Delproposto JE; Kubish GM; Tinberg CE; Khare SD; Dou J; Doyle L; Stuckey JA; Baker D; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1022-31. PubMed ID: 26419257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys.
    Dunbar JB; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Ahmed A; Esposito EX; Delproposto J; Chinnaswamy K; Kang YN; Kubish G; Gestwicki JE; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1842-52. PubMed ID: 23617227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise.
    Koes DR; Baumgartner MP; Camacho CJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1893-904. PubMed ID: 23379370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches.
    Fourches D; Muratov E; Ding F; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1915-22. PubMed ID: 23809015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Automated large-scale file preparation, docking, and scoring: evaluation of ITScore and STScore using the 2012 Community Structure-Activity Resource benchmark.
    Grinter SZ; Yan C; Huang SY; Jiang L; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1905-14. PubMed ID: 23656179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blind Pose Prediction, Scoring, and Affinity Ranking of the CSAR 2014 Dataset.
    Martiny VY; Martz F; Selwa E; Iorga BI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):996-1003. PubMed ID: 26391724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Benchmarking of different molecular docking methods for protein-peptide docking.
    Agrawal P; Singh H; Srivastava HK; Singh S; Kishore G; Raghava GPS
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Feb; 19(Suppl 13):426. PubMed ID: 30717654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Integration of Ligand and Structure Based Approaches for CSAR-2014.
    Prathipati P; Mizuguchi K
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):974-87. PubMed ID: 26492437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the Wilma-SIE Virtual Screening Method in Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Blind Challenges.
    Hogues H; Sulea T; Purisima EO
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):955-64. PubMed ID: 26282162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of GalaxyDock Based on the Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Benchmark Studies.
    Shin WH; Lee GR; Seok C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):988-95. PubMed ID: 26583962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Choosing the Optimal Rigid Receptor for Docking and Scoring in the CSAR 2013/2014 Experiment.
    Baumgartner MP; Camacho CJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1004-12. PubMed ID: 26222931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.