273 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36240514)
1. Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in-silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods.
Breznik M; Ge Y; Bluck JP; Briem H; Hahn DF; Christ CD; Mortier J; Mobley DL; Meier K
ChemMedChem; 2023 Jan; 18(1):e202200425. PubMed ID: 36240514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How Well Does the Extended Linear Interaction Energy Method Perform in Accurate Binding Free Energy Calculations?
Hao D; He X; Ji B; Zhang S; Wang J
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Dec; 60(12):6624-6633. PubMed ID: 33213150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Advances in Docking.
Sulimov VB; Kutov DC; Sulimov AV
Curr Med Chem; 2019; 26(42):7555-7580. PubMed ID: 30182836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 10. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for RNA-ligand complexes.
Jiang D; Du H; Zhao H; Deng Y; Wu Z; Wang J; Zeng Y; Zhang H; Wang X; Wang E; Hou T; Hsieh CY
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2024 Mar; 26(13):10323-10335. PubMed ID: 38501198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking.
Hou T; Wang J; Li Y; Wang W
J Comput Chem; 2011 Apr; 32(5):866-77. PubMed ID: 20949517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Insights into the Ligand Binding to Bromodomain-Containing Protein 9 (BRD9): A Guide to the Selection of Potential Binders by Computational Methods.
De Vita S; Chini MG; Bifulco G; Lauro G
Molecules; 2021 Nov; 26(23):. PubMed ID: 34885774
[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. Calculate protein-ligand binding affinities with the extended linear interaction energy method: application on the Cathepsin S set in the D3R Grand Challenge 3.
He X; Man VH; Ji B; Xie XQ; Wang J
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2019 Jan; 33(1):105-117. PubMed ID: 30218199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dynamic Docking: A Paradigm Shift in Computational Drug Discovery.
Gioia D; Bertazzo M; Recanatini M; Masetti M; Cavalli A
Molecules; 2017 Nov; 22(11):. PubMed ID: 29165360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing the performance of docking, FEP, and MM/GBSA methods on a series of KLK6 inhibitors.
Lima Silva WJ; Ferreira de Freitas R
J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2023 Sep; 37(9):407-418. PubMed ID: 37378817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide complexes.
Weng G; Wang E; Chen F; Sun H; Wang Z; Hou T
Phys Chem Chem Phys; 2019 May; 21(19):10135-10145. PubMed ID: 31062799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An efficient computational method for calculating ligand binding affinities.
Suenaga A; Okimoto N; Hirano Y; Fukui K
PLoS One; 2012; 7(8):e42846. PubMed ID: 22916168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Protein-Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations with FEP.
Wang L; Chambers J; Abel R
Methods Mol Biol; 2019; 2022():201-232. PubMed ID: 31396905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing.
Graves AP; Shivakumar DM; Boyce SE; Jacobson MP; Case DA; Shoichet BK
J Mol Biol; 2008 Mar; 377(3):914-34. PubMed ID: 18280498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improving the scoring of protein-ligand binding affinity by including the effects of structural water and electronic polarization.
Liu J; He X; Zhang JZ
J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jun; 53(6):1306-14. PubMed ID: 23651068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accurate Binding Free Energy Predictions in Fragment Optimization.
Steinbrecher TB; Dahlgren M; Cappel D; Lin T; Wang L; Krilov G; Abel R; Friesner R; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Nov; 55(11):2411-20. PubMed ID: 26457994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The impact of simulation time in predicting binding free energies using end-point approaches.
Sokouti B; Dastmalchi S; Hamzeh-Mivehroud M
J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2022 Oct; 20(5):2250024. PubMed ID: 36350600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An integrated computational approach to identify GC minor groove binders using various molecular docking scoring functions, dynamics simulations and binding free energy calculations.
Soni MN; Kumar SP; S R KJ; Rawal RM; Pandya HA
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2020 Aug; 38(13):3838-3855. PubMed ID: 31502527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Relative Binding Free Energy Calculations in Drug Discovery: Recent Advances and Practical Considerations.
Cournia Z; Allen B; Sherman W
J Chem Inf Model; 2017 Dec; 57(12):2911-2937. PubMed ID: 29243483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
