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 *

386 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28902511)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints.
    Renner S; Derksen S; Radestock S; Mörchen F
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Molecular Docking, Molecular Dynamics Simulations, Computational Screening to Design Quorum Sensing Inhibitors Targeting LuxP of Vibrio harveyi and Its Biological Evaluation.
    Rajamanikandan S; Jeyakanthan J; Srinivasan P
    Appl Biochem Biotechnol; 2017 Jan; 181(1):192-218. PubMed ID: 27535409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Docking with GemDock.
    Bitencourt-Ferreira G; de Azevedo WF
    Methods Mol Biol; 2019; 2053():169-188. PubMed ID: 31452105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. CHARMM-GUI-Based Induced Fit Docking Workflow to Generate Reliable Protein-Ligand Binding Modes.
    Guterres H; Im W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2023 Aug; 63(15):4772-4779. PubMed ID: 37462607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. CLUB-MARTINI: Selecting Favourable Interactions amongst Available Candidates, a Coarse-Grained Simulation Approach to Scoring Docking Decoys.
    Hou Q; Lensink MF; Heringa J; Feenstra KA
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0155251. PubMed ID: 27166787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Improving Protein-Ligand Docking Results with High-Throughput Molecular Dynamics Simulations.
    Guterres H; Im W
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Apr; 60(4):2189-2198. PubMed ID: 32227880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.