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 *

250 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27842227)

  • 1. Conf-VLKA: A structure-based revisitation of the Virtual Lock-and-key Approach.
    Tutone M; Perricone U; Almerico AM
    J Mol Graph Model; 2017 Jan; 71():50-57. PubMed ID: 27842227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The In Silico Fischer Lock-and-Key Model: The Combined Use of Molecular Descriptors and Docking Poses for the Repurposing of Old Drugs.
    Tutone M; Almerico AM
    Methods Mol Biol; 2020; 2089():29-39. PubMed ID: 31773645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Virtual lock-and-key approach: the in silico revival of Fischer model by means of molecular descriptors.
    Lauria A; Tutone M; Almerico AM
    Eur J Med Chem; 2011 Sep; 46(9):4274-80. PubMed ID: 21775029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations.
    Claussen H; Buning C; Rarey M; Lengauer T
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Apr; 308(2):377-95. PubMed ID: 11327774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Facing the challenges of structure-based target prediction by inverse virtual screening.
    Schomburg KT; Bietz S; Briem H; Henzler AM; Urbaczek S; Rarey M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1676-86. PubMed ID: 24851945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Extensive Reliability Evaluation of Docking-Based Target-Fishing Strategies.
    Lapillo M; Tuccinardi T; Martinelli A; Macchia M; Giordano A; Poli G
    Int J Mol Sci; 2019 Feb; 20(5):. PubMed ID: 30818741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Slynko I; Da Silva F; Bret G; Rognan D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):669-683. PubMed ID: 27480696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Local Interaction Density (LID), a Fast and Efficient Tool to Prioritize Docking Poses.
    Jacquemard C; Tran-Nguyen VK; Drwal MN; Rognan D; Kellenberger E
    Molecules; 2019 Jul; 24(14):. PubMed ID: 31323745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Flexible CDOCKER: Hybrid Searching Algorithm and Scoring Function with Side Chain Conformational Entropy.
    Wu Y; Brooks CL
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Nov; 61(11):5535-5549. PubMed ID: 34704754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.
    Cleves AE; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Jun; 29(6):485-509. PubMed ID: 25940276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Ranking docking poses by graph matching of protein-ligand interactions: lessons learned from the D3R Grand Challenge 2.
    da Silva Figueiredo Celestino Gomes P; Da Silva F; Bret G; Rognan D
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Jan; 32(1):75-87. PubMed ID: 28766097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.