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

244 related items for PubMed ID: 22551340

  • 1. Performance evaluation of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods in virtual screening.
    Hu G, Kuang G, Xiao W, Li W, Liu G, Tang Y.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 May 25; 52(5):1103-13. PubMed ID: 22551340
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors.
    Krüger DM, Evers A.
    ChemMedChem; 2010 Jan 25; 5(1):148-58. PubMed ID: 19908272
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. LigMatch: a multiple structure-based ligand matching method for 3D virtual screening.
    Kinnings SL, Jackson RM.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Sep 27; 49(9):2056-66. PubMed ID: 19685924
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. Electron density fingerprints (EDprints): virtual screening using assembled information of electron density.
    Kooistra AJ, Binsl TW, van Beek JH, de Graaf C, Heringa J.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2010 Oct 25; 50(10):1772-80. PubMed ID: 20839826
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. SABRE: ligand/structure-based virtual screening approach using consensus molecular-shape pattern recognition.
    Wei NN, Hamza A.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jan 27; 54(1):338-46. PubMed ID: 24328054
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening.
    McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, Culberson JC, Kreatsoulas C, Lindsley S, Maiorov V, Truchon JF, Cornell WD.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2007 Jan 27; 47(4):1504-19. PubMed ID: 17591764
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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]

  • 10. Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set.
    von Korff M, Freyss J, Sander T.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Feb 27; 49(2):209-31. PubMed ID: 19434824
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 1. Method and assessment of virtual screening.
    Liu X, Jiang H, Li H.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Sep 26; 51(9):2372-85. PubMed ID: 21819157
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 26; 49(6):1455-74. PubMed ID: 19476350
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods.
    Duan J, Dixon SL, Lowrie JF, Sherman W.
    J Mol Graph Model; 2010 Sep 26; 29(2):157-70. PubMed ID: 20579912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Unconventional 2D shape similarity method affords comparable enrichment as a 3D shape method in virtual screening experiments.
    Ebalunode JO, Zheng W.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2009 Jun 26; 49(6):1313-20. PubMed ID: 19480404
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols.
    Evers A, Hessler G, Matter H, Klabunde T.
    J Med Chem; 2005 Aug 25; 48(17):5448-65. PubMed ID: 16107144
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. A novel and efficient ligand-based virtual screening approach using the HWZ scoring function and an enhanced shape-density model.
    Hamza A, Wei NN, Hao C, Xiu Z, Zhan CG.
    J Biomol Struct Dyn; 2013 Aug 25; 31(11):1236-50. PubMed ID: 23140256
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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 25; 48(11):2108-17. PubMed ID: 18991371
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Atom pair 2D-fingerprints perceive 3D-molecular shape and pharmacophores for very fast virtual screening of ZINC and GDB-17.
    Awale M, Reymond JL.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Jul 28; 54(7):1892-907. PubMed ID: 24988038
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. HybridSim-VS: a web server for large-scale ligand-based virtual screening using hybrid similarity recognition techniques.
    Shang J, Dai X, Li Y, Pistolozzi M, Wang L.
    Bioinformatics; 2017 Nov 01; 33(21):3480-3481. PubMed ID: 29036579
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Virtual drug screen schema based on multiview similarity integration and ranking aggregation.
    Kang H, Sheng Z, Zhu R, Huang Q, Liu Q, Cao Z.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2012 Mar 26; 52(3):834-43. PubMed ID: 22332590
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.