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

537 related items for PubMed ID: 18211051

  • 1. 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; 48(2):319-32. PubMed ID: 18211051
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening.
    Kontoyianni M, Sokol GS, McClellan LM.
    J Comput Chem; 2005 Jan 15; 26(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 15526325
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints.
    Marcou G, Rognan D.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Jan 15; 47(1):195-207. PubMed ID: 17238265
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance.
    Sato H, Shewchuk LM, Tang J.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006 Jan 15; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Predicting multiple ligand binding modes using self-consistent pharmacophore hypotheses.
    Wallach I, Lilien R.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep 15; 49(9):2116-28. PubMed ID: 19711952
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Knowledge-based interaction fingerprint scoring: a simple method for improving the effectiveness of fast scoring functions.
    Mpamhanga CP, Chen B, McLay IM, Willett P.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006 Sep 15; 46(2):686-98. PubMed ID: 16562999
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling.
    Schafferhans A, Klebe G.
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Mar 16; 307(1):407-27. PubMed ID: 11243828
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. E-novo: an automated workflow for efficient structure-based lead optimization.
    Pearce BC, Langley DR, Kang J, Huang H, Kulkarni A.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jul 16; 49(7):1797-809. PubMed ID: 19552372
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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]

  • 12. 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 Jun 03; 46(1):380-91. PubMed ID: 16426072
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.
    Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Peishoff CE, Head MS.
    J Med Chem; 2006 Oct 05; 49(20):5912-31. PubMed ID: 17004707
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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]

  • 15. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
    Krüger DM, Evers A.
    ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan 03; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions.
    Feher M.
    Drug Discov Today; 2006 May 03; 11(9-10):421-8. PubMed ID: 16635804
    [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. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring.
    Zhang Q, Muegge I.
    J Med Chem; 2006 Mar 09; 49(5):1536-48. PubMed ID: 16509572
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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]

  • 20. A flexible approach to induced fit docking.
    Nabuurs SB, Wagener M, de Vlieg J.
    J Med Chem; 2007 Dec 27; 50(26):6507-18. PubMed ID: 18031000
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 27.