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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26389744)

  • 21. Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.
    Zhu X; Shin WH; Kim H; Kihara D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1088-99. PubMed ID: 26691286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.
    Carlson HA; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Stuckey JA; Ahmed A; Convery MA; Somers DO; Kranz M; Elkins PA; Cui G; Peishoff CE; Lambert MH; Dunbar JB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1063-77. PubMed ID: 27149958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Improving binding mode and binding affinity predictions of docking by ligand-based search of protein conformations: evaluation in D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Xu X; Yan C; Zou X
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Aug; 31(8):689-699. PubMed ID: 28668990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein-ligand docking.
    Baek M; Shin WH; Chung HW; Seok C
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Jul; 31(7):653-666. PubMed ID: 28623486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Statistical mechanics-based method to extract atomic distance-dependent potentials from protein structures.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2011 Sep; 79(9):2648-61. PubMed ID: 21732421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Integration of Ligand and Structure Based Approaches for CSAR-2014.
    Prathipati P; Mizuguchi K
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):974-87. PubMed ID: 26492437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions.
    Fan H; Schneidman-Duhovny D; Irwin JJ; Dong G; Shoichet BK; Sali A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Dec; 51(12):3078-92. PubMed ID: 22014038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A New, Improved Hybrid Scoring Function for Molecular Docking and Scoring Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
    Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2016 Apr; 87(4):618-25. PubMed ID: 26643167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Predicting Binding Poses and Affinities in the CSAR 2013-2014 Docking Exercises Using the Knowledge-Based Convex-PL Potential.
    Grudinin S; Popov P; Neveu E; Cheremovskiy G
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1053-62. PubMed ID: 26569136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of the Wilma-SIE Virtual Screening Method in Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Blind Challenges.
    Hogues H; Sulea T; Purisima EO
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):955-64. PubMed ID: 26282162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints.
    Liu J; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Li Y; Wang R
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28720122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Blind Pose Prediction, Scoring, and Affinity Ranking of the CSAR 2014 Dataset.
    Martiny VY; Martz F; Selwa E; Iorga BI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):996-1003. PubMed ID: 26391724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. SAnDReS a Computational Tool for Statistical Analysis of Docking Results and Development of Scoring Functions.
    Xavier MM; Heck GS; Avila MB; Levin NMB; Pintro VO; Carvalho NL; Azevedo WF
    Comb Chem High Throughput Screen; 2016; 19(10):801-812. PubMed ID: 27686428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein - ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation.
    Grudinin S; Kadukova M; Eisenbarth A; Marillet S; Cazals F
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):791-804. PubMed ID: 27718029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Learning from Docked Ligands: Ligand-Based Features Rescue Structure-Based Scoring Functions When Trained on Docked Poses.
    Boyles F; Deane CM; Morris GM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Nov; 62(22):5329-5341. PubMed ID: 34469150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. SCORCH: Improving structure-based virtual screening with machine learning classifiers, data augmentation, and uncertainty estimation.
    McGibbon M; Money-Kyrle S; Blay V; Houston DR
    J Adv Res; 2023 Apr; 46():135-147. PubMed ID: 35901959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.
    Wang C; Zhang Y
    J Comput Chem; 2017 Jan; 38(3):169-177. PubMed ID: 27859414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.