393 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24716849)
1. 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]
2. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
Cheng T; Li X; Li Y; Liu Z; Wang R
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update.
Su M; Yang Q; Du Y; Feng G; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Feb; 59(2):895-913. PubMed ID: 30481020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark.
Li Y; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Liu J; Han L; Wang R
Nat Protoc; 2018 Apr; 13(4):666-680. PubMed ID: 29517771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. SFCscore(RF): a random forest-based scoring function for improved affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes.
Zilian D; Sotriffer CA
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1923-33. PubMed ID: 23705795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Facing the challenges of structure-based target prediction by inverse virtual screening.
Schomburg KT; Bietz S; Briem H; Henzler AM; Urbaczek S; Rarey M
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1676-86. PubMed ID: 24851945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
Stroganov OV; Novikov FN; Stroylov VS; Kulkov V; Chilov GG
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of AutoDock and AutoDock Vina on the CASF-2013 Benchmark.
Gaillard T
J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1697-1706. PubMed ID: 29989806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates.
Wang R; Fang X; Lu Y; Yang CY; Wang S
J Med Chem; 2005 Jun; 48(12):4111-9. PubMed ID: 15943484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
Warren GL; Andrews CW; Capelli AM; Clarke B; LaLonde J; Lambert MH; Lindvall M; Nevins N; Semus SF; Senger S; Tedesco G; Wall ID; Woolven JM; Peishoff CE; Head MS
J Med Chem; 2006 Oct; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Machine learning in computational docking.
Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
Spyrakis F; Amadasi A; Fornabaio M; Abraham DJ; Mozzarelli A; Kellogg GE; Cozzini P
Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Development of a new benchmark for assessing the scoring functions applicable to protein-protein interactions.
Han L; Yang Q; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
Future Med Chem; 2018 Jul; 10(13):1555-1574. PubMed ID: 29953245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
