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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34787366)

  • 1. Challenging Reverse Screening: A Benchmark Study for Comprehensive Evaluation.
    Li M; Hu J; Wang Y; Li Y; Zhang L; Liu Z
    Mol Inform; 2022 Apr; 41(4):e2100063. PubMed ID: 34787366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
    Luo Q; Zhao L; Hu J; Jin H; Liu Z; Zhang L
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Evaluation and optimization of virtual screening workflows with DEKOIS 2.0--a public library of challenging docking benchmark sets.
    Bauer MR; Ibrahim TM; Vogel SM; Boeckler FM
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jun; 53(6):1447-62. PubMed ID: 23705874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D; Politi R; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Highly Flexible Ligand Docking: Benchmarking of the DockThor Program on the LEADS-PEP Protein-Peptide Data Set.
    Santos KB; Guedes IA; Karl ALM; Dardenne LE
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Feb; 60(2):667-683. PubMed ID: 31922754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cross-docking benchmark for automated pose and ranking prediction of ligand binding.
    Wierbowski SD; Wingert BM; Zheng J; Camacho CJ
    Protein Sci; 2020 Jan; 29(1):298-305. PubMed ID: 31721338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Benchmark data sets for structure-based computational target prediction.
    Schomburg KT; Rarey M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Aug; 54(8):2261-74. PubMed ID: 25084060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. LEADS-FRAG: A Benchmark Data Set for Assessment of Fragment Docking Performance.
    Chachulski L; Windshügel B
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Dec; 60(12):6544-6554. PubMed ID: 33289563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance Evaluation of Docking Programs- Glide, GOLD, AutoDock & SurflexDock, Using Free Energy Perturbation Reference Data: A Case Study of Fructose-1, 6-bisphosphatase-AMP Analogs.
    Reddy KK; Rathore RS; Srujana P; Burri RR; Reddy CR; Sumakanth M; Reddanna P; Reddy MR
    Mini Rev Med Chem; 2020; 20(12):1179-1187. PubMed ID: 32459606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance.
    Chaput L; Martinez-Sanz J; Saettel N; Mouawad L
    J Cheminform; 2016; 8():56. PubMed ID: 27803745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Extensive Reliability Evaluation of Docking-Based Target-Fishing Strategies.
    Lapillo M; Tuccinardi T; Martinelli A; Macchia M; Giordano A; Poli G
    Int J Mol Sci; 2019 Feb; 20(5):. PubMed ID: 30818741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A New Scoring Function for Molecular Docking Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
    Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
    Curr Drug Discov Technol; 2015; 12(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 26302746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The Performance of Several Docking Programs at Reproducing Protein-Macrolide-Like Crystal Structures.
    Castro-Alvarez A; Costa AM; Vilarrasa J
    Molecules; 2017 Jan; 22(1):. PubMed ID: 28106755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Getting Docking into Shape Using Negative Image-Based Rescoring.
    Kurkinen ST; Lätti S; Pentikäinen OT; Postila PA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Aug; 59(8):3584-3599. PubMed ID: 31290660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Multiple grid arrangement improves ligand docking with unknown binding sites: Application to the inverse docking problem.
    Ban T; Ohue M; Akiyama Y
    Comput Biol Chem; 2018 Apr; 73():139-146. PubMed ID: 29482137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Docking and Scoring with Target-Specific Pose Classifier Succeeds in Native-Like Pose Identification But Not Binding Affinity Prediction in the CSAR 2014 Benchmark Exercise.
    Politi R; Convertino M; Popov K; Dokholyan NV; Tropsha A
    J Chem Inf Model; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1032-41. PubMed ID: 27050767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Application of reverse docking for target prediction of marine compounds with anti-tumor activity.
    Chen F; Wang Z; Wang C; Xu Q; Liang J; Xu X; Yang J; Wang C; Jiang T; Yu R
    J Mol Graph Model; 2017 Oct; 77():372-377. PubMed ID: 28950183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.