367 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24851945)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Benchmark data sets for structure-based computational target prediction.
Schomburg KT; Rarey M
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Aug; 54(8):2261-74. PubMed ID: 25084060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers.
Verdonk ML; Mortenson PN; Hall RJ; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2214-25. PubMed ID: 18954138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Prospective evaluation of shape similarity based pose prediction method in D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
Kumar A; Zhang KY
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):685-693. PubMed ID: 27484214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Multiple grid arrangement improves ligand docking with unknown binding sites: Application to the inverse docking problem.
Ban T; Ohue M; Akiyama Y
Comput Biol Chem; 2018 Apr; 73():139-146. PubMed ID: 29482137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems.
Kellenberger E; Foata N; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1014-25. PubMed ID: 18412328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
Luo Q; Zhao L; Hu J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L
PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. EADock: docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization.
Grosdidier A; Zoete V; Michielin O
Proteins; 2007 Jun; 67(4):1010-25. PubMed ID: 17380512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Protein-ligand-based pharmacophores: generation and utility assessment in computational ligand profiling.
Meslamani J; Li J; Sutter J; Stevens A; Bertrand HO; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Apr; 52(4):943-55. PubMed ID: 22480372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
