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 *

238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28720122)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
    Muegge I; Martin YC
    J Med Chem; 1999 Mar; 42(5):791-804. PubMed ID: 10072678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Computational methods for calculation of ligand-binding affinity.
    de Azevedo WF; Dias R
    Curr Drug Targets; 2008 Dec; 9(12):1031-9. PubMed ID: 19128212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking.
    Yang JM; Chen CC
    Proteins; 2004 May; 55(2):288-304. PubMed ID: 15048822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Protein-specific scoring method for ligand discovery.
    Lu IL; Wang H
    J Comput Biol; 2012 Nov; 19(11):1215-26. PubMed ID: 23075003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Improving molecular docking through eHiTS' tunable scoring function.
    Ravitz O; Zsoldos Z; Simon A
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2011 Nov; 25(11):1033-51. PubMed ID: 22076470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design: 2. Can the knowledge base be enriched?
    Shen Q; Xiong B; Zheng M; Luo X; Luo C; Liu X; Du Y; Li J; Zhu W; Shen J; Jiang H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):386-97. PubMed ID: 21192670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Prediction of protein-ligand complex structure by docking software guided by other complex structures.
    Fukunishi Y; Nakamura H
    J Mol Graph Model; 2008 Feb; 26(6):1030-3. PubMed ID: 17692546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R; Fukunishi H
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Toward a robust search method for the protein-drug docking problem.
    Sadjad BS; Zsoldos Z
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2011; 8(4):1120-33. PubMed ID: 20714029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Binding site prediction and improved scoring during flexible protein-protein docking with ATTRACT.
    Fiorucci S; Zacharias M
    Proteins; 2010 Nov; 78(15):3131-9. PubMed ID: 20715290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A scalable and accurate method for classifying protein-ligand binding geometries using a MapReduce approach.
    Estrada T; Zhang B; Cicotti P; Armen RS; Taufer M
    Comput Biol Med; 2012 Jul; 42(7):758-71. PubMed ID: 22658682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible?
    Coupez B; Lewis RA
    Curr Med Chem; 2006; 13(25):2995-3003. PubMed ID: 17073642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Prediction of binding modes for ligands in the cytochromes P450 and other heme-containing proteins.
    Kirton SB; Murray CW; Verdonk ML; Taylor RD
    Proteins; 2005 Mar; 58(4):836-44. PubMed ID: 15651036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes.
    Oda A; Tsuchida K; Takakura T; Yamaotsu N; Hirono S
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(1):380-91. PubMed ID: 16426072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A critical assessment of the performance of protein-ligand scoring functions based on NMR chemical shift perturbations.
    Wang B; Westerhoff LM; Merz KM
    J Med Chem; 2007 Oct; 50(21):5128-34. PubMed ID: 17867664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Customizing scoring functions for docking.
    Pham TA; Jain AN
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2008 May; 22(5):269-86. PubMed ID: 18273558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction.
    Wang R; Lai L; Wang S
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Jan; 16(1):11-26. PubMed ID: 12197663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking.
    Ballester PJ; Mitchell JB
    Bioinformatics; 2010 May; 26(9):1169-75. PubMed ID: 20236947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.