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

889 related items for PubMed ID: 19476350

  • 1. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy.
    Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y, Humblet C.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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; 48(12):2371-85. PubMed ID: 19007114
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. LigMatch: a multiple structure-based ligand matching method for 3D virtual screening.
    Kinnings SL, Jackson RM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep 29; 49(9):2056-66. PubMed ID: 19685924
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.
    Hawkins PC, Skillman AG, Nicholls A.
    J Med Chem; 2007 Jan 11; 50(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 17201411
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Accuracy assessment of protein-based docking programs against RNA targets.
    Li Y, Shen J, Sun X, Li W, Liu G, Tang Y.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun 28; 50(6):1134-46. PubMed ID: 20481574
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods.
    Venkatraman V, Pérez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, Ritchie DW.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Dec 27; 50(12):2079-93. PubMed ID: 21090728
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set.
    Cheeseright TJ, Mackey MD, Melville JL, Vinter JG.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 Nov 27; 48(11):2108-17. PubMed ID: 18991371
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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]

  • 12. 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]

  • 13. Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses.
    Thompson DC, Humblet C, Joseph-McCarthy D.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May 01; 48(5):1081-91. PubMed ID: 18465849
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Virtual fragment docking by Glide: a validation study on 190 protein-fragment complexes.
    Sándor M, Kiss R, Keseru GM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Jun 28; 50(6):1165-72. PubMed ID: 20459088
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems.
    Kellenberger E, Foata N, Rognan D.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2008 May 28; 48(5):1014-25. PubMed ID: 18412328
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Toward fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: a massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area rescoring to improve enrichment.
    Zhang X, Wong SE, Lightstone FC.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan 27; 54(1):324-37. PubMed ID: 24358939
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Detailed comparison of the protein-ligand docking efficiencies of GOLD, a commercial package and ArgusLab, a licensable freeware.
    Joy S, Nair PS, Hariharan R, Pillai MR.
    In Silico Biol; 2006 Jan 27; 6(6):601-5. PubMed ID: 17518767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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]

  • 19. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors.
    Chen H, Lyne PD, Giordanetto F, Lovell T, Li J.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2006 Jun 01; 46(1):401-15. PubMed ID: 16426074
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
    Krüger DM, Evers A.
    ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan 01; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 45.