SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence

By R. Dewitte, Eugene I. Shakhnovich. 1996

Subfields: Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery

Citations in the corpus

Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design Strategies (2015, neutral): “Empirical Knowledge-Based DOCK [32] AutoDock [34] SMoG [82] AutoDock [34] GlideScore [37] DrugScore [62] GoldScore [35] ChemScore [60] PMF_Score [83] ICM [46] X_Score [66] MotifScore [84] LigandFit [47] F_Score [73] RF_Score [85] Molegro Virtual Docker [48] Fresno [75] PESD_SVM [86] SYBYL_G-Score…”
Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. (2011, background): “PMF [84], DrugScore [90], SMoG [91] and Bleep [85] are examples of knowledge-based functions which differ mainly in the size of training sets, the form of the energy function, the definition of atom types, distance cutoff or other parameters.”
Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules (2005, background): “Knowledge-based scoring functions have become popular in the field of docking during the past few years, yet to date there is only a single de novo design program, Smo”
Advances and Challenges in Protein-Ligand Docking (2010, unknown): “Examples include DrugScore [138,139], SMoG [140,141], BLEEP [142,143], GOLD/ASP [144], MScore [145], and KScore[146].”
Protein-ligand docking in the new millennium--a retrospective of 10 years in the field. (2013, methodology): “Popular examples of scoring functions include ChemScore [15], DrugScore [16, 17], D-Score [18], Fresno [19], F-Score [20], G-Score [18], GoldScore [21], SMoG score [22], and X-SCORE [23].”
Protein design: a perspective from simple tractable models (1998, background): “[81,83]) that can be used for reliable design approaches.”