Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,862

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery

Durant, Joseph L., Leland, Burton A., Henry, Douglas R., Nourse, James G.·2002·Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Abstract

For a number of years MDL products have exposed both 166 bit and 960 bit keysets based on 2D descriptors. These keysets were originally constructed and optimized for substructure searching. We report on improvements in the performance of MDL keysets which are reoptimized for use in molecular similarity. Classification performance for a test data set of 957 compounds was increased from 0.65 for the 166 bit keyset and 0.67 for the 960 bit keyset to 0.71 for a surprisal S/N pruned keyset containing 208 bits and 0.71 for a genetic algorithm optimized keyset containing 548 bits. We present an overview of the underlying technology supporting the definition of descriptors and the encoding of these descriptors into keysets. This technology allows definition of descriptors as combinations of atom properties, bond properties, and atomic neighborhoods at various topological separations as well as supporting a number of custom descriptors. These descriptors can then be used to set one or more bits in a keyset. We constructed various keysets and optimized their performance in clustering bioactive substances. Performance was measured using methodology developed by Briem and Lessel. "Directed pruning" was carried out by eliminating bits from the keysets on the basis of random selection, values of the surprisal of the bit, or values of the surprisal S/N ratio of the bit. The random pruning experiment highlighted the insensitivity of keyset performance for keyset lengths of more than 1000 bits. Contrary to initial expectations, pruning on the basis of the surprisal values of the various bits resulted in keysets which underperformed those resulting from random pruning. In contrast, pruning on the basis of the surprisal S/N ratio was found to yield keysets which performed better than those resulting from random pruning. We also explored the use of genetic algorithms in the selection of optimal keysets. Once more the performance was only a weak function of keyset size, and the optimizations failed to identify a single globally optimal keyset. Instead multiple, equally optimal keysets could be produced which had relatively low overlap of the descriptors they encoded.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ci010132r

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Willett, 1987, Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems
  2. McGregor M. J., 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 37, 448, 10.1021/ci960151e · DOI
  3. Combinatorial Chemistry, 1998, Wiley: New York
  4. Mason J. S., 1999, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 3, 349, 10.1016/S1367-5931(99)80051-9 · DOI
  5. Turner D. B., 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 37, 22, 10.1021/ci960463h · DOI
  6. Lipinski C. A., 1997, Adv. Drug. Delivery Rev., 23, 25, 10.1016/S0169-409X(96)00423-1 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Teague S. J., 1999, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 38, 3748, 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19991216)38:24<3743::AID-ANIE3743>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
  8. Oprea T. I., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 1315, 10.1021/ci010366a · DOI · Paper page
  9. Henkel T., 1999, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 38, 647, 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19990301)38:5<643::AID-ANIE643>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
  10. Shemetulskis N. E., 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 36, 871, 10.1021/ci950169+ · DOI
  11. Xue L., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 401
  12. Xue L., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 753
  13. Brown R. D., 1997, J. Med. Chem., 40, 2313
  14. Koehler R. T., 2000, J. Comput. Chem., 21, 1152, 10.1002/1096-987X(200010)21:13<1145::AID-JCC3>3.0.CO;2-T · DOI
  15. Patterson D. E., 1996, J. Med. Chem., 39, 3059, 10.1021/jm960290n · DOI
  16. Matter H, 1997, J. Med. Chem., 40, 1229, 10.1021/jm960352+ · DOI
  17. Rhodes N., 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 214, 10.1021/ci990428l · DOI
  18. Ahrens E. K. F., 1988, Chemical Structures, 111
  19. Christie B. D., 1993, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 33, 547, 10.1021/ci00014a004 · DOI
  20. Nagy M. Z., 1988, Chemical Structures, 130
  21. Kauvar L. M., 1995, Chem. Biol., 2, 118, 10.1016/1074-5521(95)90283-X · DOI
  22. Weinstein J. N., 1997, Science, 275, 349, 10.1126/science.275.5298.343 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Briem H., 1996, J. Med. Chem., 39, 3408, 10.1021/jm950800y · DOI
  24. Lessel U. F., 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 253, 10.1021/ci990439e · DOI
  25. Briem H., 2000, Perspect. Drug Discov. Design, 20, 244, 10.1023/A:1008793325522 · DOI
  26. Rarey M., 1998, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 490, 10.1023/A:1008068904628 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Gushurst A. J., 1991, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 31, 454, 10.1021/ci00004a003 · DOI
  28. Drug Data Report 0., 2000, MDL Information Systems
  29. Levine R., 1987, Molecular Reaction Dynamics and Chemical Reactivity

Cited by

See all 1,862

Metadata

Authors
Durant, J. L., Leland, B. A., Henry, D. R., & Nourse, J. G.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
Published
2002-09-14
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
1273-1280
ISSN
0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2200017991
Cited by
1,862
References
1
FWCI
9.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci010132r
The paper
Durant, J. L., Leland, B. A., Henry, D. R., & Nourse, J. G. (2002). Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci010132r

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.