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

204 related items for PubMed ID: 16162004

  • 1. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex.
    Miteva MA, Lee WH, Montes MO, Villoutreix BO.
    J Med Chem; 2005 Sep 22; 48(19):6012-22. PubMed ID: 16162004
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine.
    Jain AN.
    J Med Chem; 2003 Feb 13; 46(4):499-511. PubMed ID: 12570372
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
    Cavasotto CN, Abagyan RA.
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar 12; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. Considerations in compound database preparation--"hidden" impact on virtual screening results.
    Knox AJ, Meegan MJ, Carta G, Lloyd DG.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005 Nov 01; 45(6):1908-19. PubMed ID: 16309298
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases.
    Floriano WB, Vaidehi N, Zamanakos G, Goddard WA.
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan 01; 47(1):56-71. PubMed ID: 14695820
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 10. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.
    Giganti D, Guillemain H, Spadoni JL, Nilges M, Zagury JF, Montes M.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun 28; 50(6):992-1004. PubMed ID: 20527883
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 13. Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.
    Stroganov OV, Novikov FN, Stroylov VS, Kulkov V, Chilov GG.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Dec 28; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Optimization and validation of a docking-scoring protocol; application to virtual screening for COX-2 inhibitors.
    Mozziconacci JC, Arnoult E, Bernard P, Do QT, Marot C, Morin-Allory L.
    J Med Chem; 2005 Feb 24; 48(4):1055-68. PubMed ID: 15715473
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening.
    Yang JM, Chen YF, Shen TW, Kristal BS, Hsu DF.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2005 Feb 24; 45(4):1134-46. PubMed ID: 16045308
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 20. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy.
    Erickson JA, Jalaie M, Robertson DH, Lewis RA, Vieth M.
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan 01; 47(1):45-55. PubMed ID: 14695819
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.