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 *

497 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28074360)

  • 1. Exploring the stability of ligand binding modes to proteins by molecular dynamics simulations.
    Liu K; Watanabe E; Kokubo H
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Feb; 31(2):201-211. PubMed ID: 28074360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Exploring the Stability of Ligand Binding Modes to Proteins by Molecular Dynamics Simulations: A Cross-docking Study.
    Liu K; Kokubo H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Oct; 57(10):2514-2522. PubMed ID: 28902511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Prediction of ligand binding mode among multiple cross-docking poses by molecular dynamics simulations.
    Liu K; Kokubo H
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Nov; 34(11):1195-1205. PubMed ID: 32869148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.
    Proctor EA; Yin S; Tropsha A; Dokholyan NV
    Biophys J; 2012 Jan; 102(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 22225808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2.
    Athanasiou C; Vasilakaki S; Dellis D; Cournia Z
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Jan; 32(1):21-44. PubMed ID: 29119352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Prediction of binding poses to FXR using multi-targeted docking combined with molecular dynamics and enhanced sampling.
    Bhakat S; Åberg E; Söderhjelm P
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Jan; 32(1):59-73. PubMed ID: 29052792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using Selectively Scaled Molecular Dynamics Simulations to Assess Ligand Poses in RNA Aptamers.
    Liu Y; Frank AT
    J Chem Theory Comput; 2022 Sep; 18(9):5703-5709. PubMed ID: 35926894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Machine learning accelerates MD-based binding pose prediction between ligands and proteins.
    Terayama K; Iwata H; Araki M; Okuno Y; Tsuda K
    Bioinformatics; 2018 Mar; 34(5):770-778. PubMed ID: 29040432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Parallel cascade selection molecular dynamics to screen for protein complexes generated by rigid docking.
    Harada R; Yoshino R; Nishizawa H; Shigeta Y
    J Mol Graph Model; 2019 Nov; 92():94-99. PubMed ID: 31344548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Advancements in Docking and Molecular Dynamics Simulations Towards Ligand-receptor Interactions and Structure-function Relationships.
    Naqvi AAT; Mohammad T; Hasan GM; Hassan MI
    Curr Top Med Chem; 2018; 18(20):1755-1768. PubMed ID: 30360721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Poses via a Combination of Induced Fit Docking and Metadynamics Simulations.
    Clark AJ; Tiwary P; Borrelli K; Feng S; Miller EB; Abel R; Friesner RA; Berne BJ
    J Chem Theory Comput; 2016 Jun; 12(6):2990-8. PubMed ID: 27145262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Combining statistical potentials with dynamics-based entropies improves selection from protein decoys and docking poses.
    Zimmermann MT; Leelananda SP; Kloczkowski A; Jernigan RL
    J Phys Chem B; 2012 Jun; 116(23):6725-31. PubMed ID: 22490366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ensemble-based docking using biased molecular dynamics.
    Campbell AJ; Lamb ML; Joseph-McCarthy D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jul; 54(7):2127-38. PubMed ID: 24881672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein-ligand docking.
    Baek M; Shin WH; Chung HW; Seok C
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Jul; 31(7):653-666. PubMed ID: 28623486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Searching the conformational complexity and binding properties of HDAC6 through docking and molecular dynamic simulations.
    Sixto-López Y; Bello M; Rodríguez-Fonseca RA; Rosales-Hernández MC; Martínez-Archundia M; Gómez-Vidal JA; Correa-Basurto J
    J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2017 Oct; 35(13):2794-2814. PubMed ID: 27589363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accommodating protein flexibility for structure-based drug design.
    Lin JH
    Curr Top Med Chem; 2011; 11(2):171-8. PubMed ID: 20939792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.