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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26958710)

  • 1. GPCR-Bench: A Benchmarking Set and Practitioners' Guide for G Protein-Coupled Receptor Docking.
    Weiss DR; Bortolato A; Tehan B; Mason JS
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Apr; 56(4):642-51. PubMed ID: 26958710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Benchmarking the performance of MM/PBSA in virtual screening enrichment using the GPCR-Bench dataset.
    Yau MQ; Emtage AL; Loo JSE
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Nov; 34(11):1133-1145. PubMed ID: 32851579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Virtual Screening of Human Class-A GPCRs Using Ligand Profiles Built on Multiple Ligand-Receptor Interactions.
    Chan WKB; Zhang Y
    J Mol Biol; 2020 Aug; 432(17):4872-4890. PubMed ID: 32652079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Docking and Virtual Screening Strategies for GPCR Drug Discovery.
    Beuming T; Lenselink B; Pala D; McRobb F; Repasky M; Sherman W
    Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1335():251-76. PubMed ID: 26260606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Virtual fragment screening: discovery of histamine H3 receptor ligands using ligand-based and protein-based molecular fingerprints.
    Sirci F; Istyastono EP; Vischer HF; Kooistra AJ; Nijmeijer S; Kuijer M; Wijtmans M; Mannhold R; Leurs R; de Esch IJ; de Graaf C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Dec; 52(12):3308-24. PubMed ID: 23140085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An unbiased method to build benchmarking sets for ligand-based virtual screening and its application to GPCRs.
    Xia J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L; Wang XS
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 May; 54(5):1433-50. PubMed ID: 24749745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.
    Szwabowski GL; Castleman PN; Sears CK; Wink LH; Cole JA; Baker DL; Parrill AL
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Oct; 34(10):1027-1044. PubMed ID: 32737667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Structure-Based Prediction of G-Protein-Coupled Receptor Ligand Function: A β-Adrenoceptor Case Study.
    Kooistra AJ; Leurs R; de Esch IJ; de Graaf C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 May; 55(5):1045-61. PubMed ID: 25848966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Target based virtual screening by docking into automatically generated GPCR models.
    Tautermann CS
    Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 914():255-70. PubMed ID: 22976033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 7. Impact of protein flexibility and water molecules on docking-based virtual screening accuracy.
    Therrien E; Weill N; Tomberg A; Corbeil CR; Lee D; Moitessier N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Nov; 54(11):3198-210. PubMed ID: 25280064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. LIT-PCBA: An Unbiased Data Set for Machine Learning and Virtual Screening.
    Tran-Nguyen VK; Jacquemard C; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4263-4273. PubMed ID: 32282202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Novel approach for efficient pharmacophore-based virtual screening: method and applications.
    Dror O; Schneidman-Duhovny D; Inbar Y; Nussinov R; Wolfson HJ
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Oct; 49(10):2333-43. PubMed ID: 19803502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The Development of Target-Specific Pose Filter Ensembles To Boost Ligand Enrichment for Structure-Based Virtual Screening.
    Xia J; Hsieh JH; Hu H; Wu S; Wang XS
    J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Jun; 57(6):1414-1425. PubMed ID: 28511009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. DEKOIS: demanding evaluation kits for objective in silico screening--a versatile tool for benchmarking docking programs and scoring functions.
    Vogel SM; Bauer MR; Boeckler FM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Oct; 51(10):2650-65. PubMed ID: 21774552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Virtual decoy sets for molecular docking benchmarks.
    Wallach I; Lilien R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):196-202. PubMed ID: 21207928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How to benchmark methods for structure-based virtual screening of large compound libraries.
    Christofferson AJ; Huang N
    Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 819():187-95. PubMed ID: 22183538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computational protein-ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite.
    Forli S; Huey R; Pique ME; Sanner MF; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ
    Nat Protoc; 2016 May; 11(5):905-19. PubMed ID: 27077332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
    Huang N; Shoichet BK; Irwin JJ
    J Med Chem; 2006 Nov; 49(23):6789-801. PubMed ID: 17154509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.