138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24605924)
1. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models of chemical transformations from matched pairs analyses.
Beck JM; Springer C
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Apr; 54(4):1226-34. PubMed ID: 24605924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. In-Silico Extraction of Design Ideas Using MMPA-by-QSAR and its Application on ADME Endpoints.
Koutsoukas A; Chang G; Keefer CE
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jan; 59(1):477-485. PubMed ID: 30497262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. QSAR-assisted-MMPA to expand chemical transformation space for lead optimization.
Fu L; Yang ZY; Yang ZJ; Yin MZ; Lu AP; Chen X; Liu S; Hou TJ; Cao DS
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33418563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prospective Prediction of Antitarget Activity by Matched Molecular Pairs Analysis.
Warner DJ; Bridgland-Taylor MH; Sefton CE; Wood DJ
Mol Inform; 2012 May; 31(5):365-8. PubMed ID: 27477265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prediction of compound potency changes in matched molecular pairs using support vector regression.
de la Vega de León A; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2654-63. PubMed ID: 25191787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. QSAR modeling using chirality descriptors derived from molecular topology.
Golbraikh A; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2003; 43(1):144-54. PubMed ID: 12546547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Application of random forest approach to QSAR prediction of aquatic toxicity.
Polishchuk PG; Muratov EN; Artemenko AG; Kolumbin OG; Muratov NN; Kuz'min VE
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2481-8. PubMed ID: 19860412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Profile-QSAR: a novel meta-QSAR method that combines activities across the kinase family to accurately predict affinity, selectivity, and cellular activity.
Martin E; Mukherjee P; Sullivan D; Jansen J
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Aug; 51(8):1942-56. PubMed ID: 21667971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessing how well a modeling protocol captures a structure-activity landscape.
Guha R; Van Drie JH
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1716-28. PubMed ID: 18686944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling of juvenile hormone mimetic compounds for Culex pipiens larvae, with a discussion of descriptor-thinning methods.
Basak SC; Natarajan R; Mills D; Hawkins DM; Kraker JJ
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):65-77. PubMed ID: 16426041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Molecule kernels: a descriptor- and alignment-free quantitative structure-activity relationship approach.
Mohr JA; Jain BJ; Obermayer K
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Sep; 48(9):1868-81. PubMed ID: 18767832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Computationally efficient algorithm to identify matched molecular pairs (MMPs) in large data sets.
Hussain J; Rea C
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Mar; 50(3):339-48. PubMed ID: 20121045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Hierarchical Analysis of Bioactive Matched Molecular Pairs, Encoded Chemical Transformations, and Associated Substructures.
Hu Y; Bajorath J
Mol Inform; 2016 Oct; 35(10):483-488. PubMed ID: 27573350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Chemical substitutions that introduce activity cliffs across different compound classes and biological targets.
Wassermann AM; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jul; 50(7):1248-56. PubMed ID: 20608746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prediction-driven matched molecular pairs to interpret QSARs and aid the molecular optimization process.
Sushko Y; Novotarskyi S; Körner R; Vogt J; Abdelaziz A; Tetko IV
J Cheminform; 2014; 6(1):48. PubMed ID: 25544551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. MMP-Cliffs: systematic identification of activity cliffs on the basis of matched molecular pairs.
Hu X; Hu Y; Vogt M; Stumpfe D; Bajorath J
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 May; 52(5):1138-45. PubMed ID: 22489665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of P-glycoprotein substrates.
de Cerqueira Lima P; Golbraikh A; Oloff S; Xiao Y; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(3):1245-54. PubMed ID: 16711744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Methods for applying the quantitative structure-activity relationship paradigm.
Esposito EX; Hopfinger AJ; Madura JD
Methods Mol Biol; 2004; 275():131-214. PubMed ID: 15141113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Does rational selection of training and test sets improve the outcome of QSAR modeling?
Martin TM; Harten P; Young DM; Muratov EN; Golbraikh A; Zhu H; Tropsha A
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Oct; 52(10):2570-8. PubMed ID: 23030316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. QSAR modeling of nanomaterials.
Burello E; Worth AP
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol; 2011; 3(3):298-306. PubMed ID: 21384562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
