334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29086077)
1. Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.
Chaput L; Mouawad L
J Cheminform; 2017 Jun; 9(1):37. PubMed ID: 29086077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance.
Chaput L; Martinez-Sanz J; Saettel N; Mouawad L
J Cheminform; 2016; 8():56. PubMed ID: 27803745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual screening when limited experimental resources are available.
Chaput L; Martinez-Sanz J; Quiniou E; Rigolet P; Saettel N; Mouawad L
J Cheminform; 2016; 8():1. PubMed ID: 26807156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
Cross JB; Thompson DC; Rai BK; Baber JC; Fan KY; Hu Y; Humblet C
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Molecular docking of intercalators and groove-binders to nucleic acids using Autodock and Surflex.
Holt PA; Chaires JB; Trent JO
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1602-15. PubMed ID: 18642866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.
Friesner RA; Banks JL; Murphy RB; Halgren TA; Klicic JJ; Mainz DT; Repasky MP; Knoll EH; Shelley M; Perry JK; Shaw DE; Francis P; Shenkin PS
J Med Chem; 2004 Mar; 47(7):1739-49. PubMed ID: 15027865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance.
Sato H; Shewchuk LM; Tang J
J Chem Inf Model; 2006; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
Stroganov OV; Novikov FN; Stroylov VS; Kulkov V; Chilov GG
J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validation of molecular docking programs for virtual screening against dihydropteroate synthase.
Hevener KE; Zhao W; Ball DM; Babaoglu K; Qi J; White SW; Lee RE
J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Feb; 49(2):444-60. PubMed ID: 19434845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimization of compound ranking for structure-based virtual ligand screening using an established FRED-Surflex consensus approach.
Du J; Bleylevens IW; Bitorina AV; Wichapong K; Nicolaes GA
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2014 Jan; 83(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 23941463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Hybrid Docking and Machine Learning Approach to Enhance the Performance of Virtual Screening Carried out on Protein-Protein Interfaces.
Singh N; Villoutreix BO
Int J Mol Sci; 2022 Nov; 23(22):. PubMed ID: 36430841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
Zhenin M; Bahia MS; Marcou G; Varnek A; Senderowitz H; Horvath D
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
Perola E; Walters WP; Charifson PS
Proteins; 2004 Aug; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. LEADS-FRAG: A Benchmark Data Set for Assessment of Fragment Docking Performance.
Chachulski L; Windshügel B
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Dec; 60(12):6544-6554. PubMed ID: 33289563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions.
Paul N; Rognan D
Proteins; 2002 Jun; 47(4):521-33. PubMed ID: 12001231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Towards predictive docking at aminergic G-protein coupled receptors.
Jakubík J; El-Fakahany EE; Doležal V
J Mol Model; 2015 Nov; 21(11):284. PubMed ID: 26453085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
