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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33052694)

  • 1. Development of a New Scoring Function for Virtual Screening: APBScore.
    Bao J; He X; Zhang JZH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Dec; 60(12):6355-6365. PubMed ID: 33052694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. AA-Score: a New Scoring Function Based on Amino Acid-Specific Interaction for Molecular Docking.
    Pan X; Wang H; Zhang Y; Wang X; Li C; Ji C; Zhang JZH
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 May; 62(10):2499-2509. PubMed ID: 35452230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A knowledge-based halogen bonding scoring function for predicting protein-ligand interactions.
    Liu Y; Xu Z; Yang Z; Chen K; Zhu W
    J Mol Model; 2013 Nov; 19(11):5015-30. PubMed ID: 24072554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An electronic environment and contact direction sensitive scoring function for predicting affinities of protein-ligand complexes in Contour(®).
    Lindblom PR; Wu G; Liu Z; Jim KC; Baldwin JJ; Gregg RE; Claremon DA; Singh SB
    J Mol Graph Model; 2014 Sep; 53():118-127. PubMed ID: 25123650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. MedusaScore: an accurate force field-based scoring function for virtual drug screening.
    Yin S; Biedermannova L; Vondrasek J; Dokholyan NV
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Aug; 48(8):1656-62. PubMed ID: 18672869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions.
    Fan H; Schneidman-Duhovny D; Irwin JJ; Dong G; Shoichet BK; Sali A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Dec; 51(12):3078-92. PubMed ID: 22014038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Scoring and lessons learned with the CSAR benchmark using an improved iterative knowledge-based scoring function.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep; 51(9):2097-106. PubMed ID: 21830787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. FFENCODER-PL: Pair Wise Energy Descriptors for Protein-Ligand Pose Selection.
    Pei J; Song LF; Merz KM
    J Chem Theory Comput; 2021 Oct; 17(10):6647-6657. PubMed ID: 34553938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction.
    Wang R; Lai L; Wang S
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2002 Jan; 16(1):11-26. PubMed ID: 12197663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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. Ligand Identification Scoring Algorithm (LISA).
    Zheng Z; Merz KM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Jun; 51(6):1296-306. PubMed ID: 21561101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Random Forest Refinement of Pairwise Potentials for Protein-Ligand Decoy Detection.
    Pei J; Zheng Z; Kim H; Song LF; Walworth S; Merz MR; Merz KM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Jul; 59(7):3305-3315. PubMed ID: 31264420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. AutoDockFR: Advances in Protein-Ligand Docking with Explicitly Specified Binding Site Flexibility.
    Ravindranath PA; Forli S; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ; Sanner MF
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2015 Dec; 11(12):e1004586. PubMed ID: 26629955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. PLHINT: A knowledge-driven computational approach based on the intermolecular H bond interactions at the protein-ligand interface from docking solutions.
    Kumar SP
    J Mol Graph Model; 2018 Jan; 79():194-212. PubMed ID: 29241118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. PRL-Dock: protein-ligand docking based on hydrogen bond matching and probabilistic relaxation labeling.
    Wu MY; Dai DQ; Yan H
    Proteins; 2012 Aug; 80(9):2137-53. PubMed ID: 22544808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. ID-Score: a new empirical scoring function based on a comprehensive set of descriptors related to protein-ligand interactions.
    Li GB; Yang LL; Wang WJ; Li LL; Yang SY
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Mar; 53(3):592-600. PubMed ID: 23394072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.