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

1428 related items for PubMed ID: 25266271

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

  • 2. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
    Gabel J, Desaphy J, Rognan D.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct 27; 54(10):2807-15. PubMed ID: 25207678
    [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.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction.
    Brylinski M.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Nov 25; 53(11):3097-112. PubMed ID: 24171431
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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. 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]

  • 11. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations.
    Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T.
    J Mol Biol; 2001 Apr 27; 308(2):377-95. PubMed ID: 11327774
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. Improved docking of polypeptides with Glide.
    Tubert-Brohman I, Sherman W, Repasky M, Beuming T.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2013 Jul 22; 53(7):1689-99. PubMed ID: 23800267
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark.
    Fourches D, Politi R, Tropsha A.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2015 Jan 26; 55(1):63-71. PubMed ID: 25521713
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam's Razor: are there simpler solutions?
    Zhenin M, Bahia MS, Marcou G, Varnek A, Senderowitz H, Horvath D.
    J Comput Aided Mol Des; 2018 Sep 26; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases.
    Cavasotto CN, Abagyan RA.
    J Mol Biol; 2004 Mar 12; 337(1):209-25. PubMed ID: 15001363
    [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. Boosted neural networks scoring functions for accurate ligand docking and ranking.
    Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR.
    J Bioinform Comput Biol; 2018 Apr 29; 16(2):1850004. PubMed ID: 29495922
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 72.