143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34641761)
1. Fragmented blind docking: a novel protein-ligand binding prediction protocol.
Grasso G; Di Gregorio A; Mavkov B; Piga D; Labate GFD; Danani A; Deriu MA
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2022; 40(24):13472-13481. PubMed ID: 34641761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein-ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015.
Deng N; Flynn WF; Xia J; Vijayan RS; Zhang B; He P; Mentes A; Gallicchio E; Levy RM
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):743-751. PubMed ID: 27562018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein - ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation.
Grudinin S; Kadukova M; Eisenbarth A; Marillet S; Cazals F
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):791-804. PubMed ID: 27718029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Blinded predictions of binding modes and energies of HSP90-α ligands for the 2015 D3R grand challenge.
Mey ASJS; Juárez-Jiménez J; Hennessy A; Michel J
Bioorg Med Chem; 2016 Oct; 24(20):4890-4899. PubMed ID: 27485604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.
Wang Z; Sun H; Yao X; Li D; Xu L; Li Y; Tian S; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2016 May; 18(18):12964-75. PubMed ID: 27108770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improving protein-ligand docking results using the Semiempirical quantum mechanics: testing on the PDBbind 2016 core set.
Mohebbinia Z; Firouzi R; Karimi-Jafari MH
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2024 Jan; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 38165642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations.
Misini Ignjatović M; Caldararu O; Dong G; Muñoz-Gutierrez C; Adasme-Carreño F; Ryde U
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):707-730. PubMed ID: 27565797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Knowledge-guided docking: accurate prospective prediction of bound configurations of novel ligands using Surflex-Dock.
Cleves AE; Jain AN
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2015 Jun; 29(6):485-509. PubMed ID: 25940276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets.
Feinstein WP; Brylinski M
J Cheminform; 2015; 7():18. PubMed ID: 26082804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicting fragment binding poses using a combined MCSS MM-GBSA approach.
Haider MK; Bertrand HO; Hubbard RE
J Chem Inf Model; 2011 May; 51(5):1092-105. PubMed ID: 21528911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Toward fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: a massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area rescoring to improve enrichment.
Zhang X; Wong SE; Lightstone FC
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan; 54(1):324-37. PubMed ID: 24358939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Molecular docking performance evaluated on the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 drug-like ligand datasets.
Selwa E; Martiny VY; Iorga BI
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):829-839. PubMed ID: 27699554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring.
Sunseri J; Ragoza M; Collins J; Koes DR
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):761-771. PubMed ID: 27592011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improved pose and affinity predictions using different protocols tailored on the basis of data availability.
Prathipati P; Nagao C; Ahmad S; Mizuguchi K
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Sep; 30(9):817-828. PubMed ID: 27714493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Comparative Assessment of Pose Prediction Accuracy in RNA-Ligand Docking.
Agarwal R; T RR; Smith JC
J Chem Inf Model; 2023 Dec; 63(23):7444-7452. PubMed ID: 37972310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
