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)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Getting Docking into Shape Using Negative Image-Based Rescoring.
    Kurkinen ST; Lätti S; Pentikäinen OT; Postila PA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Aug; 59(8):3584-3599. PubMed ID: 31290660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Could Adenosine Recognize its Receptors with a Stoichiometry Other than 1 : 1?
    Deganutti G; Salmaso V; Moro S
    Mol Inform; 2018 Aug; 37(8):e1800009. PubMed ID: 29673107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
    Mysinger MM; Carchia M; Irwin JJ; Shoichet BK
    J Med Chem; 2012 Jul; 55(14):6582-94. PubMed ID: 22716043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Best of both worlds: on the complementarity of ligand-based and structure-based virtual screening.
    Broccatelli F; Brown N
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1634-41. PubMed ID: 24877883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Boosting virtual screening enrichments with data fusion: coalescing hits from two-dimensional fingerprints, shape, and docking.
    Sastry GM; Inakollu VS; Sherman W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jul; 53(7):1531-42. PubMed ID: 23782297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Benchmarking Data Sets for the Evaluation of Virtual Ligand Screening Methods: Review and Perspectives.
    Lagarde N; Zagury JF; Montes M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jul; 55(7):1297-307. PubMed ID: 26038804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Bridging molecular docking to membrane molecular dynamics to investigate GPCR-ligand recognition: the human A₂A adenosine receptor as a key study.
    Sabbadin D; Ciancetta A; Moro S
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):169-83. PubMed ID: 24359090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set.
    Cheeseright TJ; Mackey MD; Melville JL; Vinter JG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2108-17. PubMed ID: 18991371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Validation of a Field-Based Ligand Screener Using a Novel Benchmarking Data Set for Assessing 3D-Based Virtual Screening Methods.
    Giangreco I; Mukhopadhyay A; Cole JC
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Dec; 61(12):5841-5852. PubMed ID: 34792345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set.
    von Korff M; Freyss J; Sander T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Feb; 49(2):209-31. PubMed ID: 19434824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Importance of the pharmacological profile of the bound ligand in enrichment on nuclear receptors: toward the use of experimentally validated decoy ligands.
    Lagarde N; Zagury JF; Montes M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2915-44. PubMed ID: 25250508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Protein-ligand docking against non-native protein conformers.
    Verdonk ML; Mortenson PN; Hall RJ; Hartshorn MJ; Murray CW
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov; 48(11):2214-25. PubMed ID: 18954138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Protein-Ligand Empirical Interaction Components for Virtual Screening.
    Yan Y; Wang W; Sun Z; Zhang JZH; Ji C
    J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Aug; 57(8):1793-1806. PubMed ID: 28678484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
    Stroganov OV; Novikov FN; Stroylov VS; Kulkov V; Chilov GG
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Improving Structure-Based Virtual Screening with Ensemble Docking and Machine Learning.
    Ricci-Lopez J; Aguila SA; Gilson MK; Brizuela CA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Nov; 61(11):5362-5376. PubMed ID: 34652141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Molecular docking methodologies.
    Bortolato A; Fanton M; Mason JS; Moro S
    Methods Mol Biol; 2013; 924():339-60. PubMed ID: 23034755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.