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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26391724)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series.
    Damm-Ganamet KL; Smith RD; Dunbar JB; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1853-70. PubMed ID: 23548044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction.
    Brylinski M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3097-112. PubMed ID: 24171431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2013: Evaluation of Results from a Combined Computational Protein Design, Docking, and Scoring/Ranking Challenge.
    Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Dunbar JB; Ahmed A; Chinnaswamy K; Delproposto JE; Kubish GM; Tinberg CE; Khare SD; Dou J; Doyle L; Stuckey JA; Baker D; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1022-31. PubMed ID: 26419257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
    Greenidge PA; Kramer C; Mozziconacci JC; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Application of Shape Similarity in Pose Selection and Virtual Screening in CSARdock2014 Exercise.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):965-73. PubMed ID: 26247231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.