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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

459 related items for PubMed ID: 12773034

  • 1. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
    Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S.
    J Med Chem; 2003 Jun 05; 46(12):2287-303. PubMed ID: 12773034
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes.
    Wang R, Lu Y, Fang X, Wang S.
    J Chem Inf Comput Sci; 2004 Jun 05; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.
    Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL.
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jun 03; 47(12):3032-47. PubMed ID: 15163185
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
    Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr 03; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes.
    Zhang C, Liu S, Zhu Q, Zhou Y.
    J Med Chem; 2005 Apr 07; 48(7):2325-35. PubMed ID: 15801826
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening.
    Teramoto R, Fukunishi H.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Apr 07; 47(2):526-34. PubMed ID: 17295466
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Role of binding entropy in the refinement of protein-ligand docking predictions: analysis based on the use of 11 scoring functions.
    Ruvinsky AM.
    J Comput Chem; 2007 Jun 07; 28(8):1364-72. PubMed ID: 17342720
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Virtual screening to enrich a compound collection with CDK2 inhibitors using docking, scoring, and composite scoring models.
    Cotesta S, Giordanetto F, Trosset JY, Crivori P, Kroemer RT, Stouten PF, Vulpetti A.
    Proteins; 2005 Sep 01; 60(4):629-43. PubMed ID: 16028223
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening.
    Teramoto R, Fukunishi H.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Sep 01; 47(5):1858-67. PubMed ID: 17685604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes.
    Oda A, Tsuchida K, Takakura T, Yamaotsu N, Hirono S.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006 Sep 01; 46(1):380-91. PubMed ID: 16426072
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach.
    Muegge I, Martin YC.
    J Med Chem; 1999 Mar 11; 42(5):791-804. PubMed ID: 10072678
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 23.