194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30023710)
21. Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity.
Nguyen NT; Nguyen TH; Pham TNH; Huy NT; Bay MV; Pham MQ; Nam PC; Vu VV; Ngo ST
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Jan; 60(1):204-211. PubMed ID: 31887035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Quantum mechanical scoring: structural and energetic insights into cyclin-dependent kinase 2 inhibition by pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidines.
Brahmkshatriya PS; Dobeš P; Fanfrlik J; Rezáç J; Paruch K; Bronowska A; Lepšík M; Hobza P
Curr Comput Aided Drug Des; 2013 Mar; 9(1):118-29. PubMed ID: 23157414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Scoring Function for In Silico Drug Design.
Lepšík M; Řezáč J; Kolář M; Pecina A; Hobza P; Fanfrlík J
Chempluschem; 2013 Sep; 78(9):921-931. PubMed ID: 31986741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. On-the-Fly QM/MM Docking with Attracting Cavities.
Chaskar P; Zoete V; Röhrig UF
J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Jan; 57(1):73-84. PubMed ID: 27983849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparative Assessment of Docking Programs for Docking and Virtual Screening of Ribosomal Oxazolidinone Antibacterial Agents.
Buckley ME; Ndukwe ARN; Nair PC; Rana S; Fairfull-Smith KE; Gandhi NS
Antibiotics (Basel); 2023 Feb; 12(3):. PubMed ID: 36978331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. ViTScore: A Novel Three-Dimensional Vision Transformer Method for Accurate Prediction of Protein-Ligand Docking Poses.
Guo L; Qiu T; Wang J
IEEE Trans Nanobioscience; 2023 Oct; 22(4):734-743. PubMed ID: 37159314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Toward on-the-fly quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) docking: development and benchmark of a scoring function.
Chaskar P; Zoete V; Röhrig UF
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Nov; 54(11):3137-52. PubMed ID: 25296988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. AutoDock VinaXB: implementation of XBSF, new empirical halogen bond scoring function, into AutoDock Vina.
Koebel MR; Schmadeke G; Posner RG; Sirimulla S
J Cheminform; 2016; 8():27. PubMed ID: 27195023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparative Assessment of Seven Docking Programs on a Nonredundant Metalloprotein Subset of the PDBbind Refined.
Çınaroğlu SS; Timuçin E
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Sep; 59(9):3846-3859. PubMed ID: 31460757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of molecular mechanics, semi-empirical quantum mechanical, and density functional theory methods for scoring protein-ligand interactions.
Yilmazer ND; Korth M
J Phys Chem B; 2013 Jul; 117(27):8075-84. PubMed ID: 23758433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Semiempirical quantum mechanical method PM6-DH2X describes the geometry and energetics of CK2-inhibitor complexes involving halogen bonds well, while the empirical potential fails.
Dobes P; Rezác J; Fanfrlík J; Otyepka M; Hobza P
J Phys Chem B; 2011 Jul; 115(26):8581-9. PubMed ID: 21648479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Improving structure-based virtual screening performance via learning from scoring function components.
Xiong GL; Ye WL; Shen C; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
Brief Bioinform; 2021 May; 22(3):. PubMed ID: 32496540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. XLPFE: A Simple and Effective Machine Learning Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Scoring and Ranking.
Dong L; Qu X; Wang B
ACS Omega; 2022 Jun; 7(25):21727-21735. PubMed ID: 35785279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Reparametrization of the COSMO Solvent Model for Semiempirical Methods PM6 and PM7.
Kříž K; Řezáč J
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jan; 59(1):229-235. PubMed ID: 30608688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Assessing How Residual Errors of Scoring Functions Correlate to Ligand Structural Features.
Shulga DA; Shaimardanov AR; Ivanov NN; Palyulin VA
Int J Mol Sci; 2022 Nov; 23(23):. PubMed ID: 36499344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Systematic Investigation of Docking Failures in Large-Scale Structure-Based Virtual Screening.
Xu M; Shen C; Yang J; Wang Q; Huang N
ACS Omega; 2022 Nov; 7(43):39417-39428. PubMed ID: 36340123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. An accurate metalloprotein-specific scoring function and molecular docking program devised by a dynamic sampling and iteration optimization strategy.
Bai F; Liao S; Gu J; Jiang H; Wang X; Li H
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Apr; 55(4):833-47. PubMed ID: 25746437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. SAnDReS a Computational Tool for Statistical Analysis of Docking Results and Development of Scoring Functions.
Xavier MM; Heck GS; Avila MB; Levin NMB; Pintro VO; Carvalho NL; Azevedo WF
Comb Chem High Throughput Screen; 2016; 19(10):801-812. PubMed ID: 27686428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
