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.
3. Pharmacological affinity fingerprints derived from bioactivity data for the identification of designer drugs. He K J Cheminform; 2022 Jun; 14(1):35. PubMed ID: 35672835 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. jCompoundMapper: An open source Java library and command-line tool for chemical fingerprints. Hinselmann G; Rosenbaum L; Jahn A; Fechner N; Zell A J Cheminform; 2011 Jan; 3(1):3. PubMed ID: 21219648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Statistical-based database fingerprint: chemical space dependent representation of compound databases. Sánchez-Cruz N; Medina-Franco JL J Cheminform; 2018 Nov; 10(1):55. PubMed ID: 30467740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Anatomy of fingerprint search calculations on structurally diverse sets of active compounds. Godden JW; Stahura FL; Bajorath J J Chem Inf Model; 2005; 45(6):1812-9. PubMed ID: 16309288 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reverse fingerprinting, similarity searching by group fusion and fingerprint bit importance. Williams C Mol Divers; 2006 Aug; 10(3):311-32. PubMed ID: 17031535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Introduction of a generally applicable method to estimate retrieval of active molecules for similarity searching using fingerprints. Vogt M; Bajorath J ChemMedChem; 2007 Sep; 2(9):1311-20. PubMed ID: 17562536 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reduction and recombination of fingerprints of different design increase compound recall and the structural diversity of hits. Nisius B; Bajorath J Chem Biol Drug Des; 2010 Feb; 75(2):152-60. PubMed ID: 20028390 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Analysis and Comparison of Vector Space and Metric Space Representations in QSAR Modeling. Kausar S; Falcao AO Molecules; 2019 Apr; 24(9):. PubMed ID: 31052325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing structural fingerprints using a literature-based similarity benchmark. O'Boyle NM; Sayle RA J Cheminform; 2016; 8():36. PubMed ID: 27382417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Filtering and counting of extended connectivity fingerprint features maximizes compound recall and the structural diversity of hits. Hu Y; Lounkine E; Bajorath J Chem Biol Drug Des; 2009 Jul; 74(1):92-8. PubMed ID: 19519749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Target enhanced 2D similarity search by using explicit biological activity annotations and profiles. Yu X; Geer LY; Han L; Bryant SH J Cheminform; 2015; 7():55. PubMed ID: 26583046 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. Svetnik V; Liaw A; Tong C; Culberson JC; Sheridan RP; Feuston BP J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2003; 43(6):1947-58. PubMed ID: 14632445 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. MOST: most-similar ligand based approach to target prediction. Huang T; Mi H; Lin CY; Zhao L; Zhong LL; Liu FB; Zhang G; Lu AP; Bian ZX; BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Mar; 18(1):165. PubMed ID: 28284192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Using information from historical high-throughput screens to predict active compounds. Riniker S; Wang Y; Jenkins JL; Landrum GA J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jul; 54(7):1880-91. PubMed ID: 24933016 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]