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 *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34469692)

  • 1. Lin_F9: A Linear Empirical Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Docking.
    Yang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2021 Sep; 61(9):4630-4644. PubMed ID: 34469692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Delta Machine Learning to Improve Scoring-Ranking-Screening Performances of Protein-Ligand Scoring Functions.
    Yang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Jun; 62(11):2696-2712. PubMed ID: 35579568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Incorporating Explicit Water Molecules and Ligand Conformation Stability in Machine-Learning Scoring Functions.
    Lu J; Hou X; Wang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Nov; 59(11):4540-4549. PubMed ID: 31638801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest.
    Wang C; Zhang Y
    J Comput Chem; 2017 Jan; 38(3):169-177. PubMed ID: 27859414
    [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. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions: The CASF-2016 Update.
    Su M; Yang Q; Du Y; Feng G; Liu Z; Li Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Feb; 59(2):895-913. PubMed ID: 30481020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions by Considering Binding Affinity Information.
    Zhao X; Li H; Zhang K; Huang SY
    J Phys Chem B; 2023 Oct; 127(42):9021-9034. PubMed ID: 37822259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A New, Improved Hybrid Scoring Function for Molecular Docking and Scoring Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
    Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2016 Apr; 87(4):618-25. PubMed ID: 26643167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Docking rigid macrocycles using Convex-PL, AutoDock Vina, and RDKit in the D3R Grand Challenge 4.
    Kadukova M; Chupin V; Grudinin S
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2020 Feb; 34(2):191-200. PubMed ID: 31784861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of AutoDock and AutoDock Vina on the CASF-2013 Benchmark.
    Gaillard T
    J Chem Inf Model; 2018 Aug; 58(8):1697-1706. PubMed ID: 29989806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Improving binding mode and binding affinity predictions of docking by ligand-based search of protein conformations: evaluation in D3R grand challenge 2015.
    Xu X; Yan C; Zou X
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2017 Aug; 31(8):689-699. PubMed ID: 28668990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2.
    Kadukova M; Grudinin S
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Jan; 32(1):151-162. PubMed ID: 28913782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Vinardo: A Scoring Function Based on Autodock Vina Improves Scoring, Docking, and Virtual Screening.
    Quiroga R; Villarreal MA
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0155183. PubMed ID: 27171006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.
    Carlson HA; Smith RD; Damm-Ganamet KL; Stuckey JA; Ahmed A; Convery MA; Somers DO; Kranz M; Elkins PA; Cui G; Peishoff CE; Lambert MH; Dunbar JB
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1063-77. PubMed ID: 27149958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.