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

415 related items for PubMed ID: 17295466

  • 21. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance.
    Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS.
    Proteins; 2004 Aug 01; 56(2):235-49. PubMed ID: 15211508
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins?
    Englebienne P, Moitessier N.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun 01; 49(6):1568-80. PubMed ID: 19445499
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock.
    Rao SN, Head MS, Kulkarni A, LaLonde JM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Jun 01; 47(6):2159-71. PubMed ID: 17985863
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. 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]

  • 25. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions.
    Paul N, Rognan D.
    Proteins; 2002 Jun 01; 47(4):521-33. PubMed ID: 12001231
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Bootstrap-based consensus scoring method for protein-ligand docking.
    Fukunishi H, Teramoto R, Takada T, Shimada J.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May 01; 48(5):988-96. PubMed ID: 18426197
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio of scoring functions for protein--ligand docking.
    Seifert MH.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Mar 01; 48(3):602-12. PubMed ID: 18293951
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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 06; 48(20):6296-303. PubMed ID: 16190756
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database.
    Plewczynski D, Łaźniewski M, Augustyniak R, Ginalski K.
    J Comput Chem; 2011 Mar 06; 32(4):742-55. PubMed ID: 20812323
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.
    Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS.
    J Med Chem; 2004 Jan 29; 47(3):558-65. PubMed ID: 14736237
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Efficient virtual screening using multiple protein conformations described as negative images of the ligand-binding site.
    Virtanen SI, Pentikäinen OT.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun 28; 50(6):1005-11. PubMed ID: 20504004
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 21.