<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cognate docking accuracy measurement vs pre-optimized pose</title>
	<link>http://www.simbiosys.com/blog/2008/05/26/cognate-docking-accuracy-measurement-vs-pre-optimized-pose/</link>
	<description>Addressing the challenges of computational drug discovery</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: SimBioSys Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Chemical software quality 3 - polar surface area</title>
		<link>http://www.simbiosys.com/blog/2008/05/26/cognate-docking-accuracy-measurement-vs-pre-optimized-pose/#comment-1488</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.simbiosys.com/blog/2008/05/26/cognate-docking-accuracy-measurement-vs-pre-optimized-pose/#comment-1488</guid>
					<description>[...] Thank you very much, Peter. I am glad you changed your view about docking. This area has been the main focus of my research and development for the past 6 years and I believe we have very good results measured with sound scientific quality metrics. Mind you, some vendors in the past have used rather questionable metrics to report good results with and I have explained in that post how such metric can lead to ridiculous results. ZZ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Thank you very much, Peter. I am glad you changed your view about docking. This area has been the main focus of my research and development for the past 6 years and I believe we have very good results measured with sound scientific quality metrics. Mind you, some vendors in the past have used rather questionable metrics to report good results with and I have explained in that post how such metric can lead to ridiculous results. ZZ [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

