146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29953245)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. How different from random are docking predictions when ranked by scoring functions?
Feliu E; Oliva B
Proteins; 2010 Dec; 78(16):3376-85. PubMed ID: 20848549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Score_set: a CAPRI benchmark for scoring protein complexes.
Lensink MF; Wodak SJ
Proteins; 2014 Nov; 82(11):3163-9. PubMed ID: 25179222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Predicting protein complex geometries with linear scoring functions.
Demir-Kavuk O; Krull F; Chae MH; Knapp EW
Genome Inform; 2010; 24():21-30. PubMed ID: 22081586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
Luo Q; Zhao L; Hu J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L
PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Exploring protein-protein interactions using the site-identification by ligand competitive saturation methodology.
Yu W; Jo S; Lakkaraju SK; Weber DJ; MacKerell AD
Proteins; 2019 Apr; 87(4):289-301. PubMed ID: 30582220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks.
Yan Z; Wang J
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Mar; 30(3):219-27. PubMed ID: 26879323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Are scoring functions in protein-protein docking ready to predict interactomes? Clues from a novel binding affinity benchmark.
Kastritis PL; Bonvin AM
J Proteome Res; 2010 May; 9(5):2216-25. PubMed ID: 20329755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. CyClus: a fast, comprehensive cylindrical interface approximation clustering/reranking method for rigid-body protein-protein docking decoys.
Omori S; Kitao A
Proteins; 2013 Jun; 81(6):1005-16. PubMed ID: 23344972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Updates to the Integrated Protein-Protein Interaction Benchmarks: Docking Benchmark Version 5 and Affinity Benchmark Version 2.
Vreven T; Moal IH; Vangone A; Pierce BG; Kastritis PL; Torchala M; Chaleil R; Jiménez-García B; Bates PA; Fernandez-Recio J; Bonvin AM; Weng Z
J Mol Biol; 2015 Sep; 427(19):3031-41. PubMed ID: 26231283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Refinement of pairwise potentials via logistic regression to score protein-protein interactions.
Tanemura KA; Pei J; Merz KM
Proteins; 2020 Dec; 88(12):1559-1568. PubMed ID: 32729132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
