140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38165642)
1. Improving protein-ligand docking results using the Semiempirical quantum mechanics: testing on the PDBbind 2016 core set.
Mohebbinia Z; Firouzi R; Karimi-Jafari MH
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2024 Jan; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 38165642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Using the Semiempirical Quantum Mechanics in Improving the Molecular Docking: A Case Study with CDK2.
Bagheri S; Behnejad H; Firouzi R; Karimi-Jafari MH
Mol Inform; 2020 Sep; 39(9):e2000036. PubMed ID: 32485047
[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. Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity.
Nguyen NT; Nguyen TH; Pham TNH; Huy NT; Bay MV; Pham MQ; Nam PC; Vu VV; Ngo ST
J Chem Inf Model; 2020 Jan; 60(1):204-211. PubMed ID: 31887035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative Assessment of Seven Docking Programs on a Nonredundant Metalloprotein Subset of the PDBbind Refined.
Çınaroğlu SS; Timuçin E
J Chem Inf Model; 2019 Sep; 59(9):3846-3859. PubMed ID: 31460757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A New, Improved Hybrid Scoring Function for Molecular Docking and Scoring Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina.
Tanchuk VY; Tanin VO; Vovk AI; Poda G
Chem Biol Drug Des; 2016 Apr; 87(4):618-25. PubMed ID: 26643167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Chaos-embedded particle swarm optimization approach for protein-ligand docking and virtual screening.
Tai HK; Jusoh SA; Siu SWI
J Cheminform; 2018 Dec; 10(1):62. PubMed ID: 30552524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets.
Feinstein WP; Brylinski M
J Cheminform; 2015; 7():18. PubMed ID: 26082804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Benchmarked molecular docking integrated molecular dynamics stability analysis for prediction of SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease inhibition by olive secoiridoids.
Thangavel N; Albratty M
J King Saud Univ Sci; 2023 Jan; 35(1):102402. PubMed ID: 36338939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative Assessment of Pose Prediction Accuracy in RNA-Ligand Docking.
Agarwal R; T RR; Smith JC
J Chem Inf Model; 2023 Dec; 63(23):7444-7452. PubMed ID: 37972310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Superior Performance of the SQM/COSMO Scoring Functions in Native Pose Recognition of Diverse Protein-Ligand Complexes in Cognate Docking.
Ajani H; Pecina A; Eyrilmez SM; Fanfrlík J; Haldar S; Řezáč J; Hobza P; Lepšík M
ACS Omega; 2017 Jul; 2(7):4022-4029. PubMed ID: 30023710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Fragmented blind docking: a novel protein-ligand binding prediction protocol.
Grasso G; Di Gregorio A; Mavkov B; Piga D; Labate GFD; Danani A; Deriu MA
J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2022; 40(24):13472-13481. PubMed ID: 34641761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Attracting Cavities 2.0: Improving the Flexibility and Robustness for Small-Molecule Docking.
Röhrig UF; Goullieux M; Bugnon M; Zoete V
J Chem Inf Model; 2023 Jun; 63(12):3925-3940. PubMed ID: 37285197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Speed vs Accuracy: Effect on Ligand Pose Accuracy of Varying Box Size and Exhaustiveness in AutoDock Vina.
Agarwal R; Smith JC
Mol Inform; 2023 Feb; 42(2):e2200188. PubMed ID: 36262028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving ligand-ranking of AutoDock Vina by changing the empirical parameters.
Pham TNH; Nguyen TH; Tam NM; Y Vu T; Pham NT; Huy NT; Mai BK; Tung NT; Pham MQ; V Vu V; Ngo ST
J Comput Chem; 2022 Jan; 43(3):160-169. PubMed ID: 34716930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
