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

275 related items for PubMed ID: 25746437

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

  • 2. Toward on-the-fly quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) docking: development and benchmark of a scoring function.
    Chaskar P, Zoete V, Röhrig UF.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Nov 24; 54(11):3137-52. PubMed ID: 25296988
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.
    Luo Q, Zhao L, Hu J, Jin H, Liu Z, Zhang L.
    PLoS One; 2017 Jan 26; 12(2):e0171433. PubMed ID: 28196116
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. GPDOCK: highly accurate docking strategy for metalloproteins based on geometric probability.
    Wang K.
    Brief Bioinform; 2023 Jan 19; 24(1):. PubMed ID: 36642411
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Improving docking results via reranking of ensembles of ligand poses in multiple X-ray protein conformations with MM-GBSA.
    Greenidge PA, Kramer C, Mozziconacci JC, Sherman W.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2014 Oct 27; 54(10):2697-717. PubMed ID: 25266271
    [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. 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 27; 32(9):877-888. PubMed ID: 30173397
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets.
    Xu W, Lucke AJ, Fairlie DP.
    J Mol Graph Model; 2015 Apr 27; 57():76-88. PubMed ID: 25682361
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Unlocking Precision Docking for Metalloproteins.
    Clemente CM, Prieto JM, Martí M.
    J Chem Inf Model; 2024 Mar 11; 64(5):1581-1592. PubMed ID: 38373276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 17. 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]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 14.