Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

References 79
51. M. A. Hossain and H.-J. Schneider, Chem. Eur. J., 5, 1284 (1999). Flexibility, Association
Constants, and Salt Effects in Organic Ion Pairs: How Single Bonds Affect Molecular
Recognition.
52. K. P. Murphy, D. Xie, K. S. Thompson, L. M. Amzel, and E. Freire, Proteins: Struct., Funct.,
Genet., 18, 63 (1994). Entropy in Biological Binding Processes: Estimation of Translational
Entropy Loss.
53. J. Hermans and L. Wang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 119, 2702 (1997). Inclusion of Loss of
Translational and Rotational Freedom in Theoretical Estimates of Free Energies of Binding.
Application to a Complex of Benzene and Mutant T4 Lysozyme.
54. R. S. Bohacek and C. McMartin, J. Med. Chem., 35, 1671 (1992). Definition and Display of
Steric, Hydrophobic, and Hydrogen-Bonding Properties of Ligand Binding Sites in Proteins
Using Lee and Richards Accessible Surface: Validation of a High-Resolution Graphical Tool
for Drug Design.
55. D. H. Williams, M. S. Searle, J. P. Mackay, U. Gerhard, and R. A. Maplestone, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 90, 1172 (1993). Toward an Estimation of Binding Constants in Aqueous
Solution: Studies of Associations of Vancomycin Group Antibiotics.
56. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 243 (1994). The Development of a Simple
Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Constant for a Protein–Ligand Complex
of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
57. H.-J. Boehm, D. W. Banner, and L. Weber, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 51 (1999).
Combinatorial Docking and Combinatorial Chemistry: Design of Potent Non-Peptide
Thrombin Inhibitors.
58. S.-S. So and M. Karplus, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 243 (1999). A Comparative
Study of Ligand–Receptor Complex Binding Affinity Prediction Methods Based on Glycogen
Phosphorylase Inhibitors.
59. M. D. Miller, S. K. Kearsley, D. J. Underwood, and R. P. Sheridan, J. Comput.-Aided Mol.
Design, 8, 153 (1994). FLOG: A System to Select ‘‘Quasi-Flexible’’ Ligands Complementary
to a Receptor of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
60. G. Jones, P. Willett, and R. C. Glen, J. Mol. Biol., 245, 43 (1995). Molecular Recognition of
Receptor Sites Using a Genetic Algorithm With a Description of Desolvation.
61. G. Jones, P. Willett, R. C. Glen, A. R. Leach, and R. Taylor, J. Mol. Biol., 267, 727 (1997).
Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking.
62. D. K. Gehlhaar, G. M. Verkhivker, P. A. Rejto, C. J. Sherman, D. B. Fogel, L. J. Fogel,
and S. T. Freer, Chem. Biol., 2, 317 (1995). Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor AG-
1343 by HIV-1 Protease: Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming.
63. G. M. Verkhivker, D. Bouzida, D. K. Gehlhaar, P. A. Reijto, S. Arthurs, A. B. Colson, S. T.
Freer, V. Larson, B. A. Luty, T. Marrone, and P. W. Rose, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design,
14, 731 (2000). Deciphering Common Failures in Molecular Docking of Ligand–Protein
Complexes.
64. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, T. Lengauer, and G. Klebe, J. Mol. Biol., 261, 470 (1996). A Fast
Flexible Docking Method Using an Incremental Construction Algorithm.
65. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11, 369 (1997).
Multiple Automatic Base Selection: Protein–Ligand Docking Based on Incremental Construction
Without Manual Intervention.
66. M. Rarey, S. Wefing, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10, 41 (1996).
Placement of Medium-Sized Molecular Fragments into Active Sites of Proteins.
67. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, Bioinformatics, 15, 243 (1999). Docking of Hydrophobic
Ligands With Interaction-Based Matching Algorithms.
68. R. D. Head, M. L. Smythe, T. I. Oprea, C. L. Waller, S. M. Green, and G. R. Marshall, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 118, 3959 (1996). VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based
Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands.