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

1184 related items for PubMed ID: 15211508

  • 21. Detailed comparison of the protein-ligand docking efficiencies of GOLD, a commercial package and ArgusLab, a licensable freeware.
    Joy S, Nair PS, Hariharan R, Pillai MR.
    In Silico Biol; 2006; 6(6):601-5. PubMed ID: 17518767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.
    Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D.
    Proteins; 2004 Nov 01; 57(2):225-42. PubMed ID: 15340911
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields.
    Radestock S, Böhm M, Gohlke H.
    J Med Chem; 2005 Aug 25; 48(17):5466-79. PubMed ID: 16107145
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. 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 Aug 25; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
    Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y, Humblet C.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun 25; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Teramoto R, Fukunishi H.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Apr 25; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. New scoring functions for virtual screening from molecular dynamics simulations with a quantum-refined force-field (QRFF-MD). Application to cyclin-dependent kinase 2.
    Ferrara P, Curioni A, Vangrevelinghe E, Meyer T, Mordasini T, Andreoni W, Acklin P, Jacoby E.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006 Apr 25; 46(1):254-63. PubMed ID: 16426061
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints.
    Renner S, Derksen S, Radestock S, Mörchen F.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Feb 25; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking.
    de Graaf C, Oostenbrink C, Keizers PH, van der Wijst T, Jongejan A, Vermeulen NP.
    J Med Chem; 2006 Apr 20; 49(8):2417-30. PubMed ID: 16610785
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Benchmarking docking and scoring protocol for the identification of potential acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
    Zaheer-ul-Haq, Halim SA, Uddin R, Madura JD.
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Jun 20; 28(8):870-82. PubMed ID: 20447848
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock.
    Rao SN, Head MS, Kulkarni A, LaLonde JM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Jun 20; 47(6):2159-71. PubMed ID: 17985863
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening.
    Teramoto R, Fukunishi H.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Jun 20; 47(5):1858-67. PubMed ID: 17685604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Protein structures in virtual screening: a case study with CDK2.
    Thomas MP, McInnes C, Fischer PM.
    J Med Chem; 2006 Jan 12; 49(1):92-104. PubMed ID: 16392795
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. SDOCKER: a method utilizing existing X-ray structures to improve docking accuracy.
    Wu G, Vieth M.
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jun 03; 47(12):3142-8. PubMed ID: 15163194
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Assessment of QM/MM scoring functions for molecular docking to HIV-1 protease.
    Fong P, McNamara JP, Hillier IH, Bryce RA.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr 03; 49(4):913-24. PubMed ID: 19309119
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Complementarity of hydrophobic properties in ATP-protein binding: a new criterion to rank docking solutions.
    Pyrkov TV, Kosinsky YA, Arseniev AS, Priestle JP, Jacoby E, Efremov RG.
    Proteins; 2007 Feb 01; 66(2):388-98. PubMed ID: 17094116
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes.
    Li X, Li Y, Cheng T, Liu Z, Wang R.
    J Comput Chem; 2010 Aug 01; 31(11):2109-25. PubMed ID: 20127741
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening.
    Zavodszky MI, Rohatgi A, Van Voorst JR, Yan H, Kuhn LA.
    J Mol Recognit; 2009 Aug 01; 22(4):280-92. PubMed ID: 19235177
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.
    Huang SY, Zou X.
    Proteins; 2007 Feb 01; 66(2):399-421. PubMed ID: 17096427
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 1. Development and validation of FITTED 1.0.
    Corbeil CR, Englebienne P, Moitessier N.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Feb 01; 47(2):435-49. PubMed ID: 17305329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 60.