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 *

444 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27104528)

  • 1. Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?
    Ramírez D; Caballero J
    Int J Mol Sci; 2016 Apr; 17(4):. PubMed ID: 27104528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
    Luo Q; Zhao L; Hu J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Performance of Several Docking Programs at Reproducing Protein-Macrolide-Like Crystal Structures.
    Castro-Alvarez A; Costa AM; Vilarrasa J
    Molecules; 2017 Jan; 22(1):. PubMed ID: 28106755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.
    Xu W; Lucke AJ; Fairlie DP
    J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Apr; 57():76-88. PubMed ID: 25682361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
    Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. AutoDockFR: Advances in Protein-Ligand Docking with Explicitly Specified Binding Site Flexibility.
    Ravindranath PA; Forli S; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ; Sanner MF
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2015 Dec; 11(12):e1004586. PubMed ID: 26629955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Multipose binding in molecular docking.
    Atkovska K; Samsonov SA; Paszkowski-Rogacz M; Pisabarro MT
    Int J Mol Sci; 2014 Feb; 15(2):2622-45. PubMed ID: 24534807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction.
    Li H; Leung KS; Wong MH; Ballester PJ
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Sep; 17(Suppl 11):308. PubMed ID: 28185549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Is It Reliable to Take the Molecular Docking Top Scoring Position as the Best Solution without Considering Available Structural Data?
    Ramírez D; Caballero J
    Molecules; 2018 Apr; 23(5):. PubMed ID: 29710787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Performance of MDockPP in CAPRI rounds 28-29 and 31-35 including the prediction of water-mediated interactions.
    Xu X; Qiu L; Yan C; Ma Z; Grinter SZ; Zou X
    Proteins; 2017 Mar; 85(3):424-434. PubMed ID: 27802576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Applications of the NRGsuite and the Molecular Docking Software FlexAID in Computational Drug Discovery and Design.
    Morency LP; Gaudreault F; Najmanovich R
    Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1762():367-388. PubMed ID: 29594781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein-ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
    Deng N; Flynn WF; Xia J; Vijayan RS; Zhang B; He P; Mentes A; Gallicchio E; Levy RM
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):743-751. PubMed ID: 27562018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
    Sándor M; Kiss R; Keseru GM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Docking and Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery.
    Kontoyianni M
    Methods Mol Biol; 2017; 1647():255-266. PubMed ID: 28809009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.