167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35917397)
21. Improving protein-ligand docking and screening accuracies by incorporating a scoring function correction term.
Zheng L; Meng J; Jiang K; Lan H; Wang Z; Lin M; Li W; Guo H; Wei Y; Mu Y
Brief Bioinform; 2022 May; 23(3):. PubMed ID: 35289359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Geometric graph learning with extended atom-types features for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.
Rana MM; Nguyen DD
Comput Biol Med; 2023 Sep; 164():107250. PubMed ID: 37515872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. DENVIS: Scalable and High-Throughput Virtual Screening Using Graph Neural Networks with Atomic and Surface Protein Pocket Features.
Krasoulis A; Antonopoulos N; Pitsikalis V; Theodorakis S
J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Oct; 62(19):4642-4659. PubMed ID: 36154119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Energy-based graph convolutional networks for scoring protein docking models.
Cao Y; Shen Y
Proteins; 2020 Aug; 88(8):1091-1099. PubMed ID: 32144844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Boosting Pose Ranking Performance via Rescoring with MM-GBSA.
Greenidge PA; Lewis RA; Ertl P
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2016 Sep; 88(3):317-28. PubMed ID: 27061970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. ViTScore: A Novel Three-Dimensional Vision Transformer Method for Accurate Prediction of Protein-Ligand Docking Poses.
Guo L; Qiu T; Wang J
IEEE Trans Nanobioscience; 2023 Oct; 22(4):734-743. PubMed ID: 37159314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Predicting Protein-Ligand Docking Structure with Graph Neural Network.
Jiang H; Wang J; Cong W; Huang Y; Ramezani M; Sarma A; Dokholyan NV; Mahdavi M; Kandemir MT
J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Jun; 62(12):2923-2932. PubMed ID: 35699430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Implementation and evaluation of a docking-rescoring method using molecular footprint comparisons.
Balius TE; Mukherjee S; Rizzo RC
J Comput Chem; 2011 Jul; 32(10):2273-89. PubMed ID: 21541962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Improving Docking-Based Virtual Screening Ability by Integrating Multiple Energy Auxiliary Terms from Molecular Docking Scoring.
Ye WL; Shen C; Xiong GL; Ding JJ; Lu AP; Hou TJ; Cao DS
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4216-4230. PubMed ID: 32352294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Machine learning on ligand-residue interaction profiles to significantly improve binding affinity prediction.
Ji B; He X; Zhai J; Zhang Y; Man VH; Wang J
Brief Bioinform; 2021 Sep; 22(5):. PubMed ID: 33758923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
Gabel J; Desaphy J; Rognan D
J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
