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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24654838)

  • 1. Efficient hit and lead compound evaluation strategy based on off-rate screening by surface plasmon resonance.
    Liu L
    J Med Chem; 2014 Apr; 57(7):2843-4. PubMed ID: 24654838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Off-rate screening (ORS) by surface plasmon resonance. An efficient method to kinetically sample hit to lead chemical space from unpurified reaction products.
    Murray JB; Roughley SD; Matassova N; Brough PA
    J Med Chem; 2014 Apr; 57(7):2845-50. PubMed ID: 24520903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Integrating surface plasmon resonance biosensor-based interaction kinetic analyses into the lead discovery and optimization process.
    Danielson UH
    Future Med Chem; 2009 Nov; 1(8):1399-414. PubMed ID: 21426056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Target immobilization as a strategy for NMR-based fragment screening: comparison of TINS, STD, and SPR for fragment hit identification.
    Kobayashi M; Retra K; Figaroa F; Hollander JG; Ab E; Heetebrij RJ; Irth H; Siegal G
    J Biomol Screen; 2010 Sep; 15(8):978-89. PubMed ID: 20817886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. From experimental design to validated hits a comprehensive walk-through of fragment lead identification using surface plasmon resonance.
    Giannetti AM
    Methods Enzymol; 2011; 493():169-218. PubMed ID: 21371592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Experiences in fragment-based lead discovery.
    Hubbard RE; Murray JB
    Methods Enzymol; 2011; 493():509-31. PubMed ID: 21371604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Experimental validation of a fragment library for lead discovery using SPR biosensor technology.
    Elinder M; Geitmann M; Gossas T; Källblad P; Winquist J; Nordström H; Hämäläinen M; Danielson UH
    J Biomol Screen; 2011 Jan; 16(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 21149860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A Guide to Run Affinity Screens Using Differential Scanning Fluorimetry and Surface Plasmon Resonance Assays.
    Bergsdorf C; Wright SK
    Methods Enzymol; 2018; 610():135-165. PubMed ID: 30390797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fragment-based lead discovery and design.
    Joseph-McCarthy D; Campbell AJ; Kern G; Moustakas D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Mar; 54(3):693-704. PubMed ID: 24490951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Composing compound libraries for hit discovery--rationality-driven preselection or random choice by structural diversity?
    Weidel E; Negri M; Empting M; Hinsberger S; Hartmann RW
    Future Med Chem; 2014; 6(18):2057-72. PubMed ID: 25531968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Hit-to-Lead: Hit Validation and Assessment.
    Hevener KE; Pesavento R; Ren J; Lee H; Ratia K; Johnson ME
    Methods Enzymol; 2018; 610():265-309. PubMed ID: 30390802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimizing the hit-to-lead process using SPR analysis.
    Löfås S
    Assay Drug Dev Technol; 2004 Aug; 2(4):407-15. PubMed ID: 15357922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Druggable pockets and binding site centric chemical space: a paradigm shift in drug discovery.
    Pérot S; Sperandio O; Miteva MA; Camproux AC; Villoutreix BO
    Drug Discov Today; 2010 Aug; 15(15-16):656-67. PubMed ID: 20685398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Affinity-based screening techniques: their impact and benefit to increase the number of high quality leads.
    Bergsdorf C; Ottl J
    Expert Opin Drug Discov; 2010 Nov; 5(11):1095-107. PubMed ID: 22827747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Strategies for the use of mixture-based synthetic combinatorial libraries: scaffold ranking, direct testing in vivo, and enhanced deconvolution by computational methods.
    Houghten RA; Pinilla C; Giulianotti MA; Appel JR; Dooley CT; Nefzi A; Ostresh JM; Yu Y; Maggiora GM; Medina-Franco JL; Brunner D; Schneider J
    J Comb Chem; 2008; 10(1):3-19. PubMed ID: 18067268
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biodiversity of small molecules--a new perspective in screening set selection.
    Petrone PM; Wassermann AM; Lounkine E; Kutchukian P; Simms B; Jenkins J; Selzer P; Glick M
    Drug Discov Today; 2013 Jul; 18(13-14):674-80. PubMed ID: 23454345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Label-free screening assays: a strategy for finding better drug candidates.
    Lunn CA
    Future Med Chem; 2010 Nov; 2(11):1703-16. PubMed ID: 21428840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Efficiency of hit generation and structural characterization in fragment-based ligand discovery.
    Larsson A; Jansson A; Åberg A; Nordlund P
    Curr Opin Chem Biol; 2011 Aug; 15(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 21724447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Combining biophysical screening and X-ray crystallography for fragment-based drug discovery.
    Hennig M; Ruf A; Huber W
    Top Curr Chem; 2012; 317():115-43. PubMed ID: 21837555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Parallel screening of low molecular weight fragment libraries: do differences in methodology affect hit identification?
    Wielens J; Headey SJ; Rhodes DI; Mulder RJ; Dolezal O; Deadman JJ; Newman J; Chalmers DK; Parker MW; Peat TS; Scanlon MJ
    J Biomol Screen; 2013 Feb; 18(2):147-59. PubMed ID: 23139382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.