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

1164 related items for PubMed ID: 19358517

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results.
    Li Y, Han L, Liu Z, Wang R.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jun 23; 54(6):1717-36. PubMed ID: 24708446
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8. 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 Jun 23; 46(6):2552-62. PubMed ID: 17125195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10. 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]

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

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

  • 13. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions.
    Mooij WT, Verdonk ML.
    Proteins; 2005 Nov 01; 61(2):272-87. PubMed ID: 16106379
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Information theory-based scoring function for the structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity.
    Kulharia M, Goody RS, Jackson RM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Oct 01; 48(10):1990-8. PubMed ID: 18767831
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. 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]

  • 19. 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]

  • 20. 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 11; 28(8):1364-72. PubMed ID: 17342720
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 59.