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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25490550)

  • 41. Incorporating backbone flexibility in MedusaDock improves ligand-binding pose prediction in the CSAR2011 docking benchmark.
    Ding F; Dokholyan NV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1871-9. PubMed ID: 23237273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Sampling and Scoring in Protein-Protein Docking.
    Zięba A; Matosiuk D
    Methods Mol Biol; 2024; 2780():15-26. PubMed ID: 38987461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Protein-protein docking dealing with the unknown.
    Moreira IS; Fernandes PA; Ramos MJ
    J Comput Chem; 2010 Jan; 31(2):317-42. PubMed ID: 19462412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Protein docking using case-based reasoning.
    Ghoorah AW; Devignes MD; Smaïl-Tabbone M; Ritchie DW
    Proteins; 2013 Dec; 81(12):2150-8. PubMed ID: 24123156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Steering protein-ligand docking with quantitative NMR chemical shift perturbations.
    González-Ruiz D; Gohlke H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2260-71. PubMed ID: 19795907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Fast docking using the CHARMM force field with EADock DSS.
    Grosdidier A; Zoete V; Michielin O
    J Comput Chem; 2011 Jul; 32(10):2149-59. PubMed ID: 21541955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The scoring of poses in protein-protein docking: current capabilities and future directions.
    Moal IH; Torchala M; Bates PA; Fernández-Recio J
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2013 Oct; 14():286. PubMed ID: 24079540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Recent progress and future directions in protein-protein docking.
    Ritchie DW
    Curr Protein Pept Sci; 2008 Feb; 9(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 18336319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Score_set: a CAPRI benchmark for scoring protein complexes.
    Lensink MF; Wodak SJ
    Proteins; 2014 Nov; 82(11):3163-9. PubMed ID: 25179222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
    Thompson DC; Humblet C; Joseph-McCarthy D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. DockTrina: docking triangular protein trimers.
    Popov P; Ritchie DW; Grudinin S
    Proteins; 2014 Jan; 82(1):34-44. PubMed ID: 23775700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Combination of scoring functions improves discrimination in protein-protein docking.
    Murphy J; Gatchell DW; Prasad JC; Vajda S
    Proteins; 2003 Dec; 53(4):840-54. PubMed ID: 14635126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Flexible docking and refinement with a coarse-grained protein model using ATTRACT.
    de Vries S; Zacharias M
    Proteins; 2013 Dec; 81(12):2167-74. PubMed ID: 23996217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Predicting protein complex geometries with linear scoring functions.
    Demir-Kavuk O; Krull F; Chae MH; Knapp EW
    Genome Inform; 2010; 24():21-30. PubMed ID: 22081586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Recent Advances in Protein-Protein Docking.
    Zhang Q; Feng T; Xu L; Sun H; Pan P; Li Y; Li D; Hou T
    Curr Drug Targets; 2016; 17(14):1586-1594. PubMed ID: 26758670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Investigating the importance of Delaunay-based definition of atomic interactions in scoring of protein-protein docking results.
    Jafari R; Sadeghi M; Mirzaie M
    J Mol Graph Model; 2016 May; 66():108-14. PubMed ID: 27060891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Information-driven modeling of protein-peptide complexes.
    Trellet M; Melquiond AS; Bonvin AM
    Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1268():221-39. PubMed ID: 25555727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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