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.
5. Advances in Docking. Sulimov VB; Kutov DC; Sulimov AV Curr Med Chem; 2019; 26(42):7555-7580. PubMed ID: 30182836 [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. 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]
8. 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]
9. Prospective evaluation of shape similarity based pose prediction method in D3R Grand Challenge 2015. Kumar A; Zhang KY J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):685-693. PubMed ID: 27484214 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How Good Are Current Docking Programs at Nucleic Acid-Ligand Docking? A Comprehensive Evaluation. Jiang D; Zhao H; Du H; Deng Y; Wu Z; Wang J; Zeng Y; Zhang H; Wang X; Wu J; Hsieh CY; Hou T J Chem Theory Comput; 2023 Aug; 19(16):5633-5647. PubMed ID: 37480347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. PSI-DOCK: towards highly efficient and accurate flexible ligand docking. Pei J; Wang Q; Liu Z; Li Q; Yang K; Lai L Proteins; 2006 Mar; 62(4):934-46. PubMed ID: 16395666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prediction of ligand binding mode among multiple cross-docking poses by molecular dynamics simulations. Liu K; Kokubo H J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Nov; 34(11):1195-1205. PubMed ID: 32869148 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins. Ashtawy HM; Mahapatra NR BMC Bioinformatics; 2015; 16 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S3. PubMed ID: 25916860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Huang SY; Zou X Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]