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 *

254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26389744)

  • 1. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions Derived from Rigid and Flexible Decoy Structures: Evaluation with the 2013 and 2014 CSAR Benchmarks.
    Yan C; Grinter SZ; Merideth BR; Ma Z; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1013-21. PubMed ID: 26389744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks.
    Yan Z; Wang J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Mar; 30(3):219-27. PubMed ID: 26879323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function for protein-protein recognition.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2008 Aug; 72(2):557-79. PubMed ID: 18247354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automated large-scale file preparation, docking, and scoring: evaluation of ITScore and STScore using the 2012 Community Structure-Activity Resource benchmark.
    Grinter SZ; Yan C; Huang SY; Jiang L; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1905-14. PubMed ID: 23656179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. A New Scoring Function for Molecular Docking Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
    Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
    Curr Drug Discov Technol; 2015; 12(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 26302746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Construction and test of ligand decoy sets using MDock: community structure-activity resource benchmarks for binding mode prediction.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2107-14. PubMed ID: 21755952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Choosing the Optimal Rigid Receptor for Docking and Scoring in the CSAR 2013/2014 Experiment.
    Baumgartner MP; Camacho CJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1004-12. PubMed ID: 26222931
    [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. Scoring and lessons learned with the CSAR benchmark using an improved iterative knowledge-based scoring function.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2097-106. PubMed ID: 21830787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. ITScore-NL: An Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Nucleic Acid-Ligand Interactions.
    Feng Y; Huang SY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Dec; 60(12):6698-6708. PubMed ID: 33291885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Comput Chem; 2006 Nov; 27(15):1876-82. PubMed ID: 16983671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise.
    Koes DR; Baumgartner MP; Camacho CJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1893-904. PubMed ID: 23379370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Comput Chem; 2006 Nov; 27(15):1866-75. PubMed ID: 16983673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of GalaxyDock Based on the Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Benchmark Studies.
    Shin WH; Lee GR; Seok C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):988-95. PubMed ID: 26583962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.