Ligand deconstruction: Why some fragment binding positions are conserved and others are not
about
Mycobacterium tuberculosis Malate Synthase Structures with Fragments Reveal a Portal for Substrate/Product ExchangeNew Frontiers in DruggabilityAlphaSpace: Fragment-Centric Topographical Mapping To Target Protein-Protein Interaction Interfaces.Twenty years on: the impact of fragments on drug discovery.Ligand and Target Discovery by Fragment-Based Screening in Human Cells.Lessons from Hot Spot Analysis for Fragment-Based Drug Discovery.Focused grid-based resampling for protein docking and mapping.What is the future for fragment-based drug discovery?Computational functional group mapping for drug discovery.Substrate Fragmentation for the Design of M. tuberculosis CYP121 Inhibitors.Binding Pose Flip Explained via Enthalpic and Entropic Contributions.Fragments and hot spots in drug discovery.The Ligand Binding Landscape of Diacylglycerol Kinases.Exhaustive sampling of the fragment space associated to a molecule leading to the generation of conserved fragments.When Does Chemical Elaboration Induce a Ligand To Change Its Binding Mode?Dynamic undocking and the quasi-bound state as tools for drug discovery.Label-free NMR-based dissociation kinetics determination.Fluorogenic structure activity library pinpoints molecular variations in substrate specificity of structurally homologous esterasesSurface Probing by Fragment-Based Screening and Computational Methods Identifies Ligandable Pockets on the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) E3 Ubiquitin LigaseComputational Analysis for the Rational Design of Anti-Amyloid Beta (Aβ) Antibodies
P2860
Q27728469-E63F2329-9BAB-4B6D-99CF-DC90D5C06478Q35730955-6511D41C-9FB9-45F8-A599-93C8F3FDE97EQ35997296-8F58195C-E353-4E22-ACBD-3981E285D881Q36078186-314CB545-7224-4E73-A637-66C20BDD5DE5Q36256789-46581197-F3F3-4951-A289-97D1FC9F0D1AQ36269125-4164251A-964D-4F0D-BE44-DF2C9D764C7DQ36746240-3A44F8E9-5697-4663-9622-6210579086A9Q38644516-2041B8CD-BD45-472D-979C-0E66E7B89F58Q38890648-C3B32246-91E1-4CC2-990C-00B8F6910619Q41109181-08144F6A-3746-48B3-A79A-67A9BA66F15FQ42319095-F416F300-A227-4159-B612-44AA5F526DCAQ42635679-53F34A9D-98EE-44D3-84FD-D1E3A064759AQ45063416-2E45A5E5-8562-4EBC-A05F-B361295AB54DQ47632897-F4F7ADA0-08F0-4ACA-8EC5-D7111C1E8C9EQ48145820-C08A91E3-7560-4EB5-80A5-CCEA274525C6Q48213832-FEDB45B7-B46A-4A32-BDC8-C69586708BB2Q49969718-604FDCA6-CC70-46E8-B476-4B1BDC6DDCA3Q57159623-1A996B40-CCC1-4292-91D2-5E60AAA4A115Q57167826-94603568-7C18-41EE-AE94-D82EB973224FQ57903229-722BB8E6-482A-4045-8E99-567746C81C7D
P2860
Ligand deconstruction: Why some fragment binding positions are conserved and others are not
description
2015 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2015年の論文
@ja
2015年論文
@yue
2015年論文
@zh-hant
2015年論文
@zh-hk
2015年論文
@zh-mo
2015年論文
@zh-tw
2015年论文
@wuu
2015年论文
@zh
2015年论文
@zh-cn
name
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@ast
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@en
type
label
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@ast
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@en
prefLabel
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@ast
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@en
P2093
P2860
P356
P1476
Ligand deconstruction: Why som ...... e conserved and others are not
@en
P2093
Adrian Whitty
David R Hall
Dima Kozakov
Elizabeth V Jones
Karen N Allen
Lingqi Luo
Michael Pollastri
Sandor Vajda
Stefan O Ochiana
P2860
P304
P356
10.1073/PNAS.1501567112
P407
P50
P577
2015-04-27T00:00:00Z