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 *

305 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28616990)

  • 41. BP-Dock: a flexible docking scheme for exploring protein-ligand interactions based on unbound structures.
    Bolia A; Gerek ZN; Ozkan SB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Mar; 54(3):913-25. PubMed ID: 24380381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. How different are structurally flexible and rigid binding sites? Sequence and structural features discriminating proteins that do and do not undergo conformational change upon ligand binding.
    Gunasekaran K; Nussinov R
    J Mol Biol; 2007 Jan; 365(1):257-73. PubMed ID: 17059826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Pre-existing soft modes of motion uniquely defined by native contact topology facilitate ligand binding to proteins.
    Meireles L; Gur M; Bakan A; Bahar I
    Protein Sci; 2011 Oct; 20(10):1645-58. PubMed ID: 21826755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Interactions of acetylcholine binding site residues contributing to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gating: role of residues Y93, Y190, K145 and D200.
    Mallipeddi PL; Pedersen SE; Briggs JM
    J Mol Graph Model; 2013 Jul; 44():145-54. PubMed ID: 23831994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics-based algorithm for protein-peptide docking including receptor flexibility.
    Antes I
    Proteins; 2010 Apr; 78(5):1084-104. PubMed ID: 20017216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Plasticity of the Binding Site of Renin: Optimized Selection of Protein Structures for Ensemble Docking.
    Strecker C; Meyer B
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 May; 58(5):1121-1131. PubMed ID: 29683661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Multi-conformer ensemble docking to difficult protein targets.
    Ellingson SR; Miao Y; Baudry J; Smith JC
    J Phys Chem B; 2015 Jan; 119(3):1026-34. PubMed ID: 25198248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Insights into molecular interactions between CaM and its inhibitors from molecular dynamics simulations and experimental data.
    González-Andrade M; Rodríguez-Sotres R; Madariaga-Mazón A; Rivera-Chávez J; Mata R; Sosa-Peinado A; Del Pozo-Yauner L; Arias-Olguín II
    J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2016; 34(1):78-91. PubMed ID: 25702612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Predicting bioactive conformations and binding modes of macrocycles.
    Anighoro A; de la Vega de León A; Bajorath J
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Oct; 30(10):841-849. PubMed ID: 27655412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Investigation of the influence of external factors on the conformational dynamics of rhodopsin-like receptors by means of molecular dynamics simulation.
    Novikov GV; Sivozhelezov VS; Kolesnikov SS; Shaitan KV
    J Recept Signal Transduct Res; 2014 Apr; 34(2):104-18. PubMed ID: 24495290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. The 6th Computational Structural Bioinformatics Workshop.
    He J; Shehu A; Haspel N; Chen B
    BMC Struct Biol; 2013; 13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):I1. PubMed ID: 24564893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Energy penalties enhance flexible receptor docking in a model cavity.
    Kamenik AS; Singh I; Lak P; Balius TE; Liedl KR; Shoichet BK
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2021 Sep; 118(36):. PubMed ID: 34475217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [Influence of the orthosteric ligands binding on the conformational dynamics of the B-2-adrenergic receptor by means of essential dynamics sampling simulation].
    Novikov GV; Sivozhelezov VS; Shaitan KV
    Mol Biol (Mosk); 2014; 48(3):463-79. PubMed ID: 25831896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site.
    Wei BQ; Weaver LH; Ferrari AM; Matthews BW; Shoichet BK
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Apr; 337(5):1161-82. PubMed ID: 15046985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Accounting for loop flexibility during protein-protein docking.
    Bastard K; Prévost C; Zacharias M
    Proteins; 2006 Mar; 62(4):956-69. PubMed ID: 16372349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles.
    Lorber DM; Shoichet BK
    Protein Sci; 1998 Apr; 7(4):938-50. PubMed ID: 9568900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Effect of input differences on the results of docking calculations.
    Feher M; Williams CI
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jul; 49(7):1704-14. PubMed ID: 19530660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Ligand Docking to Intermediate and Close-To-Bound Conformers Generated by an Elastic Network Model Based Algorithm for Highly Flexible Proteins.
    Kurkcuoglu Z; Doruker P
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0158063. PubMed ID: 27348230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Free Energy Calculations Using the Movable Type Method with Molecular Dynamics Driven Protein-Ligand Sampling.
    Liu W; Liu Z; Liu H; Westerhoff LM; Zheng Z
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Nov; 62(22):5645-5665. PubMed ID: 36282990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.