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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37606194)

  • 21. Machine learning in computational docking.
    Khamis MA; Gomaa W; Ahmed WF
    Artif Intell Med; 2015 Mar; 63(3):135-52. PubMed ID: 25724101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. GAABind: a geometry-aware attention-based network for accurate protein-ligand binding pose and binding affinity prediction.
    Tan H; Wang Z; Hu G
    Brief Bioinform; 2023 Nov; 25(1):. PubMed ID: 38102069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Advancing Ligand Docking through Deep Learning: Challenges and Prospects in Virtual Screening.
    Zhang X; Shen C; Zhang H; Kang Y; Hsieh CY; Hou T
    Acc Chem Res; 2024 May; 57(10):1500-1509. PubMed ID: 38577892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A fully differentiable ligand pose optimization framework guided by deep learning and a traditional scoring function.
    Wang Z; Zheng L; Wang S; Lin M; Wang Z; Kong AW; Mu Y; Wei Y; Li W
    Brief Bioinform; 2023 Jan; 24(1):. PubMed ID: 36502369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. HarmonyDOCK: the structural analysis of poses in protein-ligand docking.
    Plewczynski D; Philips A; Von Grotthuss M; Rychlewski L; Ginalski K
    J Comput Biol; 2014 Mar; 21(3):247-56. PubMed ID: 21091053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. GSScore: a novel Graphormer-based shell-like scoring method for protein-ligand docking.
    Guo L; Wang J
    Brief Bioinform; 2024 Mar; 25(3):. PubMed ID: 38706316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Deep Learning Model for Efficient Protein-Ligand Docking with Implicit Side-Chain Flexibility.
    Masters MR; Mahmoud AH; Wei Y; Lill MA
    J Chem Inf Model; 2023 Mar; 63(6):1695-1707. PubMed ID: 36916514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets.
    Proctor EA; Yin S; Tropsha A; Dokholyan NV
    Biophys J; 2012 Jan; 102(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 22225808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. A pose prediction approach based on ligand 3D shape similarity.
    Kumar A; Zhang KY
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2016 Jun; 30(6):457-69. PubMed ID: 27379501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Delta Machine Learning to Improve Scoring-Ranking-Screening Performances of Protein-Ligand Scoring Functions.
    Yang C; Zhang Y
    J Chem Inf Model; 2022 Jun; 62(11):2696-2712. PubMed ID: 35579568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Binding affinity prediction for protein-ligand complexes based on β contacts and B factor.
    Liu Q; Kwoh CK; Li J
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov; 53(11):3076-85. PubMed ID: 24191692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. PLANET: A Multi-objective Graph Neural Network Model for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.
    Zhang X; Gao H; Wang H; Chen Z; Zhang Z; Chen X; Li Y; Qi Y; Wang R
    J Chem Inf Model; 2024 Apr; 64(7):2205-2220. PubMed ID: 37319418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction.
    Velec HF; Gohlke H; Klebe G
    J Med Chem; 2005 Oct; 48(20):6296-303. PubMed ID: 16190756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?
    Korb O; Ten Brink T; Victor Paul Raj FR; Keil M; Exner TE
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2012 Feb; 26(2):185-97. PubMed ID: 22231069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Combining Docking Pose Rank and Structure with Deep Learning Improves Protein-Ligand Binding Mode Prediction over a Baseline Docking Approach.
    Morrone JA; Weber JK; Huynh T; Luo H; Cornell WD
    J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Sep; 60(9):4170-4179. PubMed ID: 32077698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction.
    Li H; Leung KS; Wong MH; Ballester PJ
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Sep; 17(Suppl 11):308. PubMed ID: 28185549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.