Complexity and simplicity of ligand-macromolecule interactions: the energy landscape perspective.
暂无分享,去创建一个
Djamal Bouzida | Gennady M Verkhivker | Peter W Rose | Paul A Rejto | D. Bouzida | P. Rejto | S. Freer | D. Gehlhaar | P. W. Rose | Daniel K Gehlhaar | Stephan T Freer
[1] R Nussinov,et al. Protein folding via binding and vice versa. , 1998, Folding & design.
[2] Paul A. Rejto,et al. MONTE CARLO STUDY OF LIGAND-PROTEIN BINDING ENERGY LANDSCAPES WITH THE WEIGHTED HISTOGRAM ANALYSIS METHOD , 1999 .
[3] I. Kuntz,et al. Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model , 1999 .
[4] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Navigating ligand–protein binding free energy landscapes: universality and diversity of protein folding and molecular recognition mechanisms , 2001 .
[5] G. Klebe,et al. Statistical potentials and scoring functions applied to protein-ligand binding. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.
[6] M. Murcko,et al. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[7] A. Caflisch,et al. Efficient electrostatic solvation model for protein‐fragment docking , 2001, Proteins.
[8] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Hierarchy of simulation models in predicting structure and energetics of the Src SH2 domain binding to tyrosyl phosphopeptides. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[9] J. Onuchic,et al. The energy landscape theory of protein folding: insights into folding mechanisms and scenarios. , 2000, Advances in protein chemistry.
[10] P. Hajduk,et al. Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[11] Janet M. Thornton,et al. BLEEP—potential of mean force describing protein–ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data , 1999 .
[12] P. Dean,et al. Recent advances in structure-based rational drug design. , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.
[13] J A McCammon,et al. Theory of biomolecular recognition. , 1998, Current opinion in structural biology.
[14] R Nussinov,et al. Point mutations and sequence variability in proteins: Redistributions of preexisting populations , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[15] X Fradera,et al. Similarity‐driven flexible ligand docking , 2000, Proteins.
[16] R. Stroud,et al. Site-directed ligand discovery. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[17] R. Stroud,et al. Predicting and harnessing protein flexibility in the design of species-specific inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. , 2001, Chemistry & biology.
[18] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Towards understanding the mechanisms of molecular recognition by computer simulations of ligand–protein interactions , 1999, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.
[19] P. Kollman,et al. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. , 2000, Accounts of chemical research.
[20] I. Luque,et al. Structural stability of binding sites: Consequences for binding affinity and allosteric effects , 2000, Proteins.
[21] I. Vakser,et al. How common is the funnel‐like energy landscape in protein‐protein interactions? , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.
[22] Thomas Lengauer,et al. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking , 1999, Proteins.
[23] W. Delano,et al. Convergent solutions to binding at a protein-protein interface. , 2000, Science.
[24] M Stahl,et al. Structure-based library design: molecular modelling merges with combinatorial chemistry. , 2000, Current opinion in chemical biology.
[25] H. Wolfson,et al. Protein functional epitopes: hot spots, dynamics and combinatorial libraries. , 2001, Current opinion in structural biology.
[26] R Abagyan,et al. Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists , 2000, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
[27] Benjamin A. Shoemaker,et al. Speeding molecular recognition by using the folding funnel: the fly-casting mechanism. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[28] L. Mirny,et al. Protein folding theory: from lattice to all-atom models. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.
[29] Malin M. Young,et al. Design, docking, and evaluation of multiple libraries against multiple targets , 2001, Proteins.
[30] S Vajda,et al. Free energy landscapes of encounter complexes in protein-protein association. , 1999, Biophysical journal.
[31] Gennady Verkhivker,et al. Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[32] R Abagyan,et al. High-throughput docking for lead generation. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.
[33] Thomas Lengauer,et al. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.
[34] Paul A. Rejto,et al. Examining ligand-protein interactions with binding-energy landscapes , 1999 .
[35] Leif A. Eriksson,et al. Theoretical Biochemistry: Processes and Properties of Biological Systems , 2001 .
[36] R. Jernigan,et al. Proteins with similar architecture exhibit similar large-scale dynamic behavior. , 2000, Biophysical journal.
[37] B K Shoichet,et al. Structure-based discovery and in-parallel optimization of novel competitive inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. , 1999, Chemistry & biology.
[38] Y. Martin,et al. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[39] M. Gilson,et al. A hierarchical method for generating low‐energy conformers of a protein‐ligand complex , 1998, Proteins.
[40] Todd J. A. Ewing,et al. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[41] Julie D. Forman-Kay,et al. The 'dynamics' in the thermodynamics of binding , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.
[42] P Willett,et al. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.
[43] I. Vakser,et al. A systematic study of low-resolution recognition in protein--protein complexes. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[44] M Rarey,et al. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[45] H. Frauenfelder,et al. The energy landscape in non-biological and biological molecules , 1998, Nature Structural Biology.
[46] R M Knegtel,et al. Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking , 1999, Proteins.
[47] Jeremy R. H. Tame,et al. Scoring functions: A view from the bench , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[48] J A McCammon,et al. Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. , 2000, Molecular pharmacology.
[49] I. Kuntz,et al. Ligand solvation in molecular docking , 1999, Proteins.
[50] I. Kuntz,et al. Flexible ligand docking: A multistep strategy approach , 1999, Proteins.
[51] D. Rognan,et al. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[52] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Chapter 8 – Monte Carlo simulations of HIV-1 protease binding dynamics and thermodynamics with ensembles of protein conformations: Incorporating protein flexibility in deciphering mechanisms of molecular recognition , 2001 .
[53] R. Nussinov,et al. Folding and binding cascades: Dynamic landscapes and population shifts , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.
[54] R. Nussinov,et al. Folding and binding cascades: shifts in energy landscapes. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[55] A. Sali,et al. Protein Structure Prediction and Structural Genomics , 2001, Science.
[56] B. Matthews,et al. Docking molecules by families to increase the diversity of hits in database screens: Computational strategy and experimental evaluation , 2001, Proteins.
[57] S. Vajda,et al. Protein docking along smooth association pathways , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[58] H. Dyson,et al. Intrinsically unstructured proteins: re-assessing the protein structure-function paradigm. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.
[59] R. Nussinov,et al. Conservation of polar residues as hot spots at protein interfaces , 2000, Proteins.
[60] G M Verkhivker,et al. A mean field model of ligand-protein interactions: implications for the structural assessment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease complexes and receptor-specific binding. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[61] P Hobza,et al. Noncovalent interactions: a challenge for experiment and theory. , 2000, Chemical reviews.
[62] Ingo Muegge,et al. Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[63] P. Hajduk,et al. Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Proteins: SAR by NMR , 1996, Science.
[64] P. Kollman,et al. Binding of a diverse set of ligands to avidin and streptavidin: an accurate quantitative prediction of their relative affinities by a combination of molecular mechanics and continuum solvent models. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[65] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Hierarchy of simulation models in predicting molecular recognition mechanisms from the binding energy landscapes: Structural analysis of the peptide complexes with SH2 domains , 2001, Proteins.
[66] R. Nussinov,et al. Folding funnels, binding funnels, and protein function , 1999, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.
[67] B. A. Luty,et al. Discovering high-affinity ligands from the computationally predicted structures and affinities of small molecules bound to a target: A virtual screening approach , 2000 .
[68] J. Apostolakis,et al. Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments with electrostatic solvation , 1999, Proteins.
[69] G. Klebe,et al. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.
[70] T Lengauer,et al. Two-stage method for protein-ligand docking. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[71] G Klebe,et al. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.
[72] G M Verkhivker,et al. Structural consensus in ligand‐protein docking identifies recognition peptide motifs that bind streptavidin , 1997, Proteins.
[73] Richard Bonneau,et al. Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.
[74] A. Davis,et al. Hydrogen Bonding, Hydrophobic Interactions, and Failure of the Rigid Receptor Hypothesis. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.
[75] Gennady M Verkhivker,et al. Unraveling principles of lead discovery: from unfrustrated energy landscapes to novel molecular anchors. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[76] R M Stroud,et al. Approaches to solving the rigid receptor problem by identifying a minimal set of flexible residues during ligand docking. , 2001, Chemistry & biology.
[77] Charles DeLisi,et al. Protein‐protein recognition: exploring the energy funnels near the binding sites , 1999, Proteins.
[78] Peter W. Rose,et al. Parallel simulated tempering dynamics of ligand–protein binding with ensembles of protein conformations , 2001 .