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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35935527)

  • 1. Consensus combining outcomes of multiple ensemble dockings: examples using dDAT crystalized complexes.
    Triches F; Triches F; Lino de Oliveira C
    MethodsX; 2022; 9():101788. PubMed ID: 35935527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. dockECR: Open consensus docking and ranking protocol for virtual screening of small molecules.
    Ochoa R; Palacio-Rodriguez K; Clemente CM; Adler NS
    J Mol Graph Model; 2021 Dec; 109():108023. PubMed ID: 34555725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Exponential consensus ranking improves the outcome in docking and receptor ensemble docking.
    Palacio-Rodríguez K; Lans I; Cavasotto CN; Cossio P
    Sci Rep; 2019 Mar; 9(1):5142. PubMed ID: 30914702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.
    Chaput L; Mouawad L
    J Cheminform; 2017 Jun; 9(1):37. PubMed ID: 29086077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. AutoDockFR: Advances in Protein-Ligand Docking with Explicitly Specified Binding Site Flexibility.
    Ravindranath PA; Forli S; Goodsell DS; Olson AJ; Sanner MF
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2015 Dec; 11(12):e1004586. PubMed ID: 26629955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the binding performance of flavonoids to estrogen receptor alpha by Autodock, Autodock Vina and Surflex-Dock.
    Xue Q; Liu X; Russell P; Li J; Pan W; Fu J; Zhang A
    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2022 Mar; 233():113323. PubMed ID: 35183811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Combination of pose and rank consensus in docking-based virtual screening: the best of both worlds.
    Scardino V; Bollini M; Cavasotto CN
    RSC Adv; 2021 Oct; 11(56):35383-35391. PubMed ID: 35424265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
    Wang R; Lu Y; Wang S
    J Med Chem; 2003 Jun; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Optimization of compound ranking for structure-based virtual ligand screening using an established FRED-Surflex consensus approach.
    Du J; Bleylevens IW; Bitorina AV; Wichapong K; Nicolaes GA
    Chem Biol Drug Des; 2014 Jan; 83(1):37-51. PubMed ID: 23941463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.
    Huang SY; Zou X
    Proteins; 2007 Feb; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment.
    Verdonk ML; Berdini V; Hartshorn MJ; Mooij WT; Murray CW; Taylor RD; Watson P
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004; 44(3):793-806. PubMed ID: 15154744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of consensus scoring methods for AutoDock Vina, smina and idock.
    Masters L; Eagon S; Heying M
    J Mol Graph Model; 2020 May; 96():107532. PubMed ID: 31991303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.