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

283 related items for PubMed ID: 19445499

  • 1. 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; 49(6):1568-80. PubMed ID: 19445499
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.
    Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Apr; 49(4):1079-93. PubMed ID: 19358517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 5. Force-field-based prediction of binding affinities of ligands to proteins.
    Englebienne P, Moitessier N.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Nov; 49(11):2564-71. PubMed ID: 19928836
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. 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 Jun 03; 44(6):2114-25. PubMed ID: 15554682
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD.
    Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD.
    Proteins; 2003 Sep 01; 52(4):609-23. PubMed ID: 12910460
    [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.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations.
    Spyrakis F, Amadasi A, Fornabaio M, Abraham DJ, Mozzarelli A, Kellogg GE, Cozzini P.
    Eur J Med Chem; 2007 Jul 01; 42(7):921-33. PubMed ID: 17346861
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Structural artifacts in protein-ligand X-ray structures: implications for the development of docking scoring functions.
    Søndergaard CR, Garrett AE, Carstensen T, Pollastri G, Nielsen JE.
    J Med Chem; 2009 Sep 24; 52(18):5673-84. PubMed ID: 19711919
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Development and evaluation of a generic evolutionary method for protein-ligand docking.
    Yang JM.
    J Comput Chem; 2004 Apr 30; 25(6):843-57. PubMed ID: 15011256
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. 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 07; 48(4):747-54. PubMed ID: 18318474
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 15.