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 *

648 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28182403)

  • 1. Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions.
    Liu Z; Su M; Han L; Liu J; Yang Q; Li Y; Wang R
    Acc Chem Res; 2017 Feb; 50(2):302-309. PubMed ID: 28182403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y; Han L; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update.
    Su M; Yang Q; Du Y; Feng G; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Feb; 59(2):895-913. PubMed ID: 30481020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set.
    Li Y; Liu Z; Li J; Han L; Liu J; Zhao Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1700-16. PubMed ID: 24716849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
    Cheng T; Li X; Li Y; Liu Z; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark.
    Li Y; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Liu J; Han L; Wang R
    Nat Protoc; 2018 Apr; 13(4):666-680. PubMed ID: 29517771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Development of a new benchmark for assessing the scoring functions applicable to protein-protein interactions.
    Han L; Yang Q; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    Future Med Chem; 2018 Jul; 10(13):1555-1574. PubMed ID: 29953245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Evaluation of AutoDock and AutoDock Vina on the CASF-2013 Benchmark.
    Gaillard T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1697-1706. PubMed ID: 29989806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates.
    Wang R; Fang X; Lu Y; Yang CY; Wang S
    J Med Chem; 2005 Jun; 48(12):4111-9. PubMed ID: 15943484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database.
    Liu Z; Li Y; Han L; Li J; Liu J; Zhao Z; Nie W; Liu Y; Wang R
    Bioinformatics; 2015 Feb; 31(3):405-12. PubMed ID: 25301850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions by Considering Binding Affinity Information.
    Zhao X; Li H; Zhang K; Huang SY
    J Phys Chem B; 2023 Oct; 127(42):9021-9034. PubMed ID: 37822259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints.
    Liu J; Su M; Liu Z; Li J; Li Y; Wang R
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jul; 18(1):343. PubMed ID: 28720122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Fang X; Wang S
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A New, Improved Hybrid Scoring Function for Molecular Docking and Scoring Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
    Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2016 Apr; 87(4):618-25. PubMed ID: 26643167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparative assessment of ranking accuracies of conventional and machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2012; 9(5):1301-13. PubMed ID: 22411892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. PLANET: A Multi-objective Graph Neural Network Model for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.
    Zhang X; Gao H; Wang H; Chen Z; Zhang Z; Chen X; Li Y; Qi Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2024 Apr; 64(7):2205-2220. PubMed ID: 37319418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 33.