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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26583962)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 scoring exercise.
    Sulea T; Cui Q; Purisima EO
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2066-81. PubMed ID: 21714553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys.
    Dunbar JB; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Ahmed A; Esposito EX; Delproposto J; Chinnaswamy K; Kang YN; Kubish G; Gestwicki JE; Stuckey JA; Carlson HA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1842-52. PubMed ID: 23617227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches.
    Fourches D; Muratov E; Ding F; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Aug; 53(8):1915-22. PubMed ID: 23809015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Ligand- and receptor-based docking with LiBELa.
    dos Santos Muniz H; Nascimento AS
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Aug; 29(8):713-23. PubMed ID: 26141308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. LigDockCSA: protein-ligand docking using conformational space annealing.
    Shin WH; Heo L; Lee J; Ko J; Seok C; Lee J
    J Comput Chem; 2011 Nov; 32(15):3226-32. PubMed ID: 21837636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. D3R grand challenge 2015: Evaluation of protein-ligand pose and affinity predictions.
    Gathiaka S; Liu S; Chiu M; Yang H; Stuckey JA; Kang YN; Delproposto J; Kubish G; Dunbar JB; Carlson HA; Burley SK; Walters WP; Amaro RE; Feher VA; Gilson MK
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):651-668. PubMed ID: 27696240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Using the multi-objective optimization replica exchange Monte Carlo enhanced sampling method for protein-small molecule docking.
    Wang H; Liu H; Cai L; Wang C; Lv Q
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):327. PubMed ID: 28693470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. GeauxDock: A novel approach for mixed-resolution ligand docking using a descriptor-based force field.
    Ding Y; Fang Y; Feinstein WP; Ramanujam J; Koppelman DM; Moreno J; Brylinski M; Jarrell M
    J Comput Chem; 2015 Oct; 36(27):2013-26. PubMed ID: 26250822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
    Cavasotto CN; Abagyan RA
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
    Spyrakis F; Amadasi A; Fornabaio M; Abraham DJ; Mozzarelli A; Kellogg GE; Cozzini P
    Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.