Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

80 The Use of Scoring Functions in Drug Discovery Applications
69. A. N. Jain, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10, 427 (1996). Scoring Non-Covalent Protein
Ligand Interactions: A Continuous Differentiable Function Tuned to Compute Binding
Affinities.
70. W. Welch, J. Ruppert, and A. N. Jain, Chem. Biol., 3, 449 (1996). Hammerhead: Fast, Fully
Automated Docking of Flexible Ligands to Protein Binding Sites.
71. M. D. Elridge, C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, G. V. Paolini, and R. P. Mee, J. Comput.-Aided
Mol. Design, 11, 425 (1997). Empirical Scoring Functions. I. The Development of a Fast
Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Affinity of Ligands in Receptor Complexes.
72. C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, and M. D. Elridge, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 503
(1999). Empirical Scoring Functions. II. The Testing of an Empirical Scoring Function for the
Prediction of Ligand-Receptor Binding Affinities and the Use of Bayesian Regression to
Improve the Quality of the Method.
73. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 309 (1998). Prediction of Binding Constants
of Protein Ligands: A Fast Method for the Prioritization of Hits Obtained From De Novo
Design or 3D Database Search Programs.
74. Y. Takamatsu and A. Itai, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 33, 62 (1998). A New Method for
Predicting Binding Free Energy Between Receptor and Ligand.
75. R. Wang, L. Liu, L. Lai, and Y. Tang, J. Mol. Model., 4, 379 (1998). SCORE: A New
Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein–Ligand Complex.
76. D. Rognan, S. L. Lauemoller, A. Holm, S. Buus, and V. Tschinke, J. Med. Chem., 42, 4650
(1999). Predicting Binding Affinities of Protein Ligands from Three-Dimensional Models:
Application to Peptide Binding to Class I Major Histocompatibility Proteins.
77. C. Bissantz, G. Folkers, and D. Rognan, J. Med. Chem., 43, 4759 (2000). Protein-Based
Virtual Screening of Chemical Databases. 1. Evaluation of Different Docking/Scoring
Combinations.
78. M. Stahl and M. Rarey, J. Med. Chem., 44, 1035 (2001). Detailed Analysis of Scoring
Functions for Virtual Screening.
79. G. E. Kellogg, G. S. Joshi, and D. J. Abraham, Med. Chem. Res., 1, 444 (1991). New Tools for
Modeling and Understanding Hydrophobicity and Hydrophobic Interactions.
80. E. C. Meng, I. D. Kuntz, D. J. Abraham, and G. E. Kellogg, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8,
299 (1994). Evaluating Docked Complexes With the HINT Exponential Function and
Empirical Atomic Hydrophobicities.
81. C. Zhang, G. Vasmatzis, J. L. Cornette, and C. DeLisi, J. Mol. Biol., 267, 707 (1997).
Determination of Atomic Solvation Energies from the Structure of Crystallized Proteins.
82. R. S. DeWitte and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 118, 11733 (1996). SMoG: De Novo
Design Method Based on Simple, Fast and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology
and Supporting Evidence.
83. R. S. DeWitte, A. V. Ishchenko, and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 119, 4608 (1997).
SMoG: De Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates.
2. Case Studies in Molecular Design.
84. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1165
(1999). BLEEP—A Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein–Ligand Interactions. I.
Generating the Potential.
85. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, M. J. Forster, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput.
Chem., 20, 1177 (1999). BLEEP—A Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein–Ligand
Interactions. II. Calculation of Binding Energies and Comparison With Experimental
Data.
86. I. Muegge and Y. C. Martin, J. Med. Chem., 42, 791 (1999). A General and Fast Scoring
Function for Protein–Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach.
87. I. Muegge, Y. C. Martin, P. J. Hajduk, and S. W. Fesik, J. Med. Chem., 42, 2498 (1999).
Evaluation of PMF Scoring in Docking Weak Ligands to the FK506 Binding Protein.