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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (2001) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(00)00129-0 · Cited by 18,139
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Willett, 1987, Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems
- McGregor M. J., 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 37, 448, 10.1021/ci960151e · DOI
- Combinatorial Chemistry, 1998, Wiley: New York
- Mason J. S., 1999, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 3, 349, 10.1016/S1367-5931(99)80051-9 · doi:10.1016/s1367-5931(99)80051-9
- Turner D. B., 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 37, 22, 10.1021/ci960463h · doi:10.1021/ci960463h
- Lipinski C. A., 1997, Adv. Drug. Delivery Rev., 23, 25, 10.1016/S0169-409X(96)00423-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Oprea T. I., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 1315, 10.1021/ci010366a · DOI · Paper page
- 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:10.1002/(sici)1521-3773(19990301)38:5<643::aid-anie643>3.0.co;2-g
- Shemetulskis N. E., 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 36, 871, 10.1021/ci950169+ · DOI
- Xue L., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 401
- Xue L., 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41, 753
- Brown R. D., 1997, J. Med. Chem., 40, 2313
- 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
- Patterson D. E., 1996, J. Med. Chem., 39, 3059, 10.1021/jm960290n · DOI · Paper page
- Matter H, 1997, J. Med. Chem., 40, 1229, 10.1021/jm960352+ · DOI
- Rhodes N., 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 214, 10.1021/ci990428l · doi:10.1021/ci990428l
- Ahrens E. K. F., 1988, Chemical Structures, 111
- Christie B. D., 1993, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 33, 547, 10.1021/ci00014a004 · doi:10.1021/ci00014a004
- Nagy M. Z., 1988, Chemical Structures, 130
- Kauvar L. M., 1995, Chem. Biol., 2, 118, 10.1016/1074-5521(95)90283-X · DOI · Paper page
- Weinstein J. N., 1997, Science, 275, 349, 10.1126/science.275.5298.343 · DOI · Paper page
- Briem H., 1996, J. Med. Chem., 39, 3408, 10.1021/jm950800y · DOI
- Lessel U. F., 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 253, 10.1021/ci990439e · DOI
- Briem H., 2000, Perspect. Drug Discov. Design, 20, 244, 10.1023/A:1008793325522 · DOI
- Rarey M., 1998, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 490, 10.1023/A:1008068904628 · DOI · Paper page
- Gushurst A. J., 1991, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 31, 454, 10.1021/ci00004a003 · doi:10.1021/ci00004a003
- Drug Data Report 0., 2000, MDL Information Systems
- Levine R., 1987, Molecular Reaction Dynamics and Chemical Reactivity
Cited by
QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?
Cherkasov, A., Muratov, E. N., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Baskin, I. I., Cronin, M., Dearden, J., Gramatica, P., Martin, Y. C., Todeschini, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm4004285 · Cited by 2,164
Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Prediction
Yang, K., Swanson, K., Jin, W., Coley, C., Eiden, P., Gao, H., Guzman-Perez, A., Hopper, T., Kelley, B., Mathea, M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00237 · Cited by 1,923
Molecular Sets (MOSES): A Benchmarking Platform for Molecular Generation Models
Polykovskiy, D., Zhebrak, A., Sanchez-Lengeling, B., Golovanov, S., Tatanov, O., Belyaev, S., Kurbanov, R., Artamonov, A., Aladinskiy, V., Veselov, M., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.565644 · Cited by 849
Deep learning for molecular design—a review of the state of the art
Elton, D. C., Boukouvalas, Z., Fuge, M. D., & Chung, P. W. (2019) · Molecular Systems Design & Engineering · doi:10.1039/c9me00039a · Cited by 683
Molecular representations in AI-driven drug discovery: a review and practical guide
David, L., Thakkar, A., Mercado, R., & Engkvist, O. (2020) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-020-00460-5 · Cited by 587
Metadata
- Authors
- Durant, J. L., Leland, B. A., Henry, D. R., & Nourse, J. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- 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
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.