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 *

405 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30319422)

  • 1. Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.
    Guedes IA; Pereira FSS; Dardenne LE
    Front Pharmacol; 2018; 9():1089. PubMed ID: 30319422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An Overview of Scoring Functions Used for Protein-Ligand Interactions in Molecular Docking.
    Li J; Fu A; Zhang L
    Interdiscip Sci; 2019 Jun; 11(2):320-328. PubMed ID: 30877639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
    Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Empirical Scoring Functions for Affinity Prediction of Protein-ligand Complexes.
    Pason LP; Sotriffer CA
    Mol Inform; 2016 Dec; 35(11-12):541-548. PubMed ID: 27870243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Task-Specific Scoring Functions for Predicting Ligand Binding Poses and Affinity and for Screening Enrichment.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Jan; 58(1):119-133. PubMed ID: 29190087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Addressing docking pose selection with structure-based deep learning: Recent advances, challenges and opportunities.
    Vittorio S; Lunghini F; Morerio P; Gadioli D; Orlandini S; Silva P; Jan Martinovic ; Pedretti A; Bonanni D; Del Bue A; Palermo G; Vistoli G; Beccari AR
    Comput Struct Biotechnol J; 2024 Dec; 23():2141-2151. PubMed ID: 38827235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A generalized protein-ligand scoring framework with balanced scoring, docking, ranking and screening powers.
    Shen C; Zhang X; Hsieh CY; Deng Y; Wang D; Xu L; Wu J; Li D; Kang Y; Hou T; Pan P
    Chem Sci; 2023 Aug; 14(30):8129-8146. PubMed ID: 37538816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comprehensive assessment of flexible-ligand docking algorithms: current effectiveness and challenges.
    Huang SY
    Brief Bioinform; 2018 Sep; 19(5):982-994. PubMed ID: 28334282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Chaos-embedded particle swarm optimization approach for protein-ligand docking and virtual screening.
    Tai HK; Jusoh SA; Siu SWI
    J Cheminform; 2018 Dec; 10(1):62. PubMed ID: 30552524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparative assessment of ranking accuracies of conventional and machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
    Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR
    IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2012; 9(5):1301-13. PubMed ID: 22411892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Receptor-ligand molecular docking.
    Guedes IA; de Magalhães CS; Dardenne LE
    Biophys Rev; 2014 Mar; 6(1):75-87. PubMed ID: 28509958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Challenges, applications, and recent advances of protein-ligand docking in structure-based drug design.
    Grinter SZ; Zou X
    Molecules; 2014 Jul; 19(7):10150-76. PubMed ID: 25019558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Machine learning optimization of cross docking accuracy.
    Bjerrum EJ
    Comput Biol Chem; 2016 Jun; 62():133-44. PubMed ID: 27179709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Rescoring ligand docking poses.
    Zhong S; Zhang Y; Xiu Z
    Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2010 May; 13(3):326-34. PubMed ID: 20443166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.