527 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30390544)
1. GPCR homology model template selection benchmarking: Global versus local similarity measures.
Castleman PN; Sears CK; Cole JA; Baker DL; Parrill AL
J Mol Graph Model; 2019 Jan; 86():235-246. PubMed ID: 30390544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.
Szwabowski GL; Castleman PN; Sears CK; Wink LH; Cole JA; Baker DL; Parrill AL
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Oct; 34(10):1027-1044. PubMed ID: 32737667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessing GPCR homology models constructed from templates of various transmembrane sequence identities: Binding mode prediction and docking enrichment.
Loo JSE; Emtage AL; Ng KW; Yong ASJ; Doughty SW
J Mol Graph Model; 2018 Mar; 80():38-47. PubMed ID: 29306746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reliability of Docking-Based Virtual Screening for GPCR Ligands with Homology Modeled Structures: A Case Study of the Angiotensin II Type I Receptor.
Chen H; Fu W; Wang Z; Wang X; Lei T; Zhu F; Li D; Chang S; Xu L; Hou T
ACS Chem Neurosci; 2019 Jan; 10(1):677-689. PubMed ID: 30265513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Template selection and refinement considerations for modelling aminergic GPCR-ligand complexes.
Urmi KF; Finch AM; Griffith R
J Mol Graph Model; 2017 Sep; 76():488-503. PubMed ID: 28818718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficiency of Homology Modeling Assisted Molecular Docking in G-protein Coupled Receptors.
Bhunia SS; Saxena AK
Curr Top Med Chem; 2021; 21(4):269-294. PubMed ID: 32901584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using molecular dynamics for the refinement of atomistic models of GPCRs by homology modeling.
Lupala CS; Rasaeifar B; Gomez-Gutierrez P; Perez JJ
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2018 Jul; 36(9):2436-2448. PubMed ID: 28728517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Self-docking and cross-docking simulations of G protein-coupled receptor-ligand complexes: Impact of ligand type and receptor activation state.
Thomas BN; Parrill AL; Baker DL
J Mol Graph Model; 2022 May; 112():108119. PubMed ID: 34979368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Homology modeling of G-protein-coupled receptors with X-ray structures on the rise.
Yarnitzky T; Levit A; Niv MY
Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel; 2010 May; 13(3):317-25. PubMed ID: 20443165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of template choice on homology model efficiency in virtual screening.
Rataj K; Witek J; Mordalski S; Kosciolek T; Bojarski AJ
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun; 54(6):1661-8. PubMed ID: 24813470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Performance of virtual screening against GPCR homology models: Impact of template selection and treatment of binding site plasticity.
Jaiteh M; Rodríguez-Espigares I; Selent J; Carlsson J
PLoS Comput Biol; 2020 Mar; 16(3):e1007680. PubMed ID: 32168319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. From heptahelical bundle to hits from the Haystack: structure-based virtual screening for GPCR ligands.
Kooistra AJ; Roumen L; Leurs R; de Esch IJ; de Graaf C
Methods Enzymol; 2013; 522():279-336. PubMed ID: 23374191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How to choose templates for modeling of protein complexes: Insights from benchmarking template-based docking.
Chakravarty D; McElfresh GW; Kundrotas PJ; Vakser IA
Proteins; 2020 Aug; 88(8):1070-1081. PubMed ID: 31994759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improving the Modeling of Extracellular Ligand Binding Pockets in RosettaGPCR for Conformational Selection.
Liessmann F; Künze G; Meiler J
Int J Mol Sci; 2023 Apr; 24(9):. PubMed ID: 37175495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Exploring the structure of opioid receptors with homology modeling based on single and multiple templates and subsequent docking: a comparative study.
Bera I; Laskar A; Ghoshal N
J Mol Model; 2011 May; 17(5):1207-21. PubMed ID: 20661609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparative sequence and structural analyses of G-protein-coupled receptor crystal structures and implications for molecular models.
Worth CL; Kleinau G; Krause G
PLoS One; 2009 Sep; 4(9):e7011. PubMed ID: 19756152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ligand-steered modeling and docking: A benchmarking study in class A G-protein-coupled receptors.
Phatak SS; Gatica EA; Cavasotto CN
J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec; 50(12):2119-28. PubMed ID: 21080692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. GPCR Homology Model Generation for Lead Optimization.
Tautermann CS
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1705():115-131. PubMed ID: 29188560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment and challenges of ligand docking into comparative models of G-protein coupled receptors.
Nguyen ED; Norn C; Frimurer TM; Meiler J
PLoS One; 2013; 8(7):e67302. PubMed ID: 23844000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Improving virtual screening of G protein-coupled receptors via ligand-directed modeling.
Coudrat T; Simms J; Christopoulos A; Wootten D; Sexton PM
PLoS Comput Biol; 2017 Nov; 13(11):e1005819. PubMed ID: 29131821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
