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.
5. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking. Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Ligity: A Non-Superpositional, Knowledge-Based Approach to Virtual Screening. Ebejer JP; Finn PW; Wong WK; Deane CM; Morris GM J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jun; 59(6):2600-2616. PubMed ID: 31117509 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. PLHINT: A knowledge-driven computational approach based on the intermolecular H bond interactions at the protein-ligand interface from docking solutions. Kumar SP J Mol Graph Model; 2018 Jan; 79():194-212. PubMed ID: 29241118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions? Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark. Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. CSAR Benchmark of Flexible MedusaDock in Affinity Prediction and Nativelike Binding Pose Selection. Nedumpully-Govindan P; Jemec DB; Ding F J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1042-52. PubMed ID: 26252196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins. Rarey M; Kramer B; Lengauer T Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol; 1995; 3():300-8. PubMed ID: 7584452 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Docking software performance in protein-glycosaminoglycan systems. Uciechowska-Kaczmarzyk U; Chauvot de Beauchene I; Samsonov SA J Mol Graph Model; 2019 Jul; 90():42-50. PubMed ID: 30959268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. ProPose: a docking engine based on a fully configurable protein-ligand interaction model. Seifert MH; Schmitt F; Herz T; Kramer B J Mol Model; 2004 Dec; 10(5-6):342-57. PubMed ID: 15597203 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. Claussen H; Buning C; Rarey M; Lengauer T J Mol Biol; 2001 Apr; 308(2):377-95. PubMed ID: 11327774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. HybridDock: A Hybrid Protein-Ligand Docking Protocol Integrating Protein- and Ligand-Based Approaches. Huang SY; Li M; Wang J; Pan Y J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1078-87. PubMed ID: 26317502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5. Moustakas DT; Lang PT; Pegg S; Pettersen E; Kuntz ID; Brooijmans N; Rizzo RC J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2006; 20(10-11):601-19. PubMed ID: 17149653 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]