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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25046765)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Validation of an automated procedure for the prediction of relative free energies of binding on a set of aldose reductase inhibitors.
    Ferrari AM; Degliesposti G; Sgobba M; Rastelli G
    Bioorg Med Chem; 2007 Dec; 15(24):7865-77. PubMed ID: 17870536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Prediction of dual agents as an activator of mutant p53 and inhibitor of Hsp90 by docking, molecular dynamic simulation and virtual screening.
    Abbasi M; Sadeghi-Aliabadi H; Hassanzadeh F; Amanlou M
    J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Sep; 61():186-95. PubMed ID: 26277488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessing protein-ligand docking for the binding of organometallic compounds to proteins.
    Ortega-Carrasco E; Lledós A; Maréchal JD
    J Comput Chem; 2014 Jan; 35(3):192-8. PubMed ID: 24375319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Ranking docking poses by graph matching of protein-ligand interactions: lessons learned from the D3R Grand Challenge 2.
    da Silva Figueiredo Celestino Gomes P; Da Silva F; Bret G; Rognan D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Jan; 32(1):75-87. PubMed ID: 28766097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
    Cross JB; Thompson DC; Rai BK; Baber JC; Fan KY; Hu Y; Humblet C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Molecular docking methodologies.
    Bortolato A; Fanton M; Mason JS; Moro S
    Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 924():339-60. PubMed ID: 23034755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A large-scale test of free-energy simulation estimates of protein-ligand binding affinities.
    Mikulskis P; Genheden S; Ryde U
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2794-806. PubMed ID: 25264937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Gaussian docking functions.
    McGann MR; Almond HR; Nicholls A; Grant JA; Brown FK
    Biopolymers; 2003 Jan; 68(1):76-90. PubMed ID: 12579581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Molecular docking to flexible targets.
    Sørensen J; Demir Ö; Swift RV; Feher VA; Amaro RE
    Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1215():445-69. PubMed ID: 25330975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Blinded evaluation of cathepsin S inhibitors from the D3RGC3 dataset using molecular docking and free energy calculations.
    Chaput L; Selwa E; Elisée E; Iorga BI
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Jan; 33(1):93-103. PubMed ID: 30206740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Protein structure-based drug design: from docking to molecular dynamics.
    Śledź P; Caflisch A
    Curr Opin Struct Biol; 2018 Feb; 48():93-102. PubMed ID: 29149726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Protein flexibility in virtual screening: the BACE-1 case study.
    Cosconati S; Marinelli L; Di Leva FS; La Pietra V; De Simone A; Mancini F; Andrisano V; Novellino E; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Oct; 52(10):2697-704. PubMed ID: 23005250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Analysis of cyclosporin A and a set of analogs as inhibitors of a T. cruzi cyclophilin by docking and molecular dynamics.
    Carraro R; Iribarne F; Paulino M
    J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2016; 34(2):399-413. PubMed ID: 26046477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An in silico virtual screening study for the design of norovirus inhibitors: fragment-based molecular docking and binding free energy calculations.
    Lundborg M; Ali E; Widmalm G
    Carbohydr Res; 2013 Aug; 378():133-8. PubMed ID: 23582100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Binding mode similarity measures for ranking of docking poses: a case study on the adenosine A2A receptor.
    Anighoro A; Bajorath J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Jun; 30(6):447-56. PubMed ID: 27334985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.
    Hawkins PC; Skillman AG; Nicholls A
    J Med Chem; 2007 Jan; 50(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 17201411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Search for β2 adrenergic receptor ligands by virtual screening via grid computing and investigation of binding modes by docking and molecular dynamics simulations.
    Bai Q; Shao Y; Pan D; Zhang Y; Liu H; Yao X
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(9):e107837. PubMed ID: 25229694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: a critical review.
    Scior T; Bender A; Tresadern G; Medina-Franco JL; Martínez-Mayorga K; Langer T; Cuanalo-Contreras K; Agrafiotis DK
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Apr; 52(4):867-81. PubMed ID: 22435959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Local Interaction Density (LID), a Fast and Efficient Tool to Prioritize Docking Poses.
    Jacquemard C; Tran-Nguyen VK; Drwal MN; Rognan D; Kellenberger E
    Molecules; 2019 Jul; 24(14):. PubMed ID: 31323745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.