The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space
Abstract
Different molecular descriptors capture different aspects of molecular structures, but this effect has not yet been quantified systematically on a large scale. In this work, we calculate the similarity of 37 descriptors by repeatedly selecting query compounds and ranking the rest of the database. Euclidean distances between the rank-ordering of different descriptors are calculated to determine descriptor (as opposed to compound) similarity, followed by PCA for visualization. Four broad descriptor classes are identified, which are circular fingerprints; circular fingerprints considering counts; path-based and keyed fingerprints; and pharmacophoric descriptors. Descriptor behavior is much more defined by those four classes than the particular parametrization. Using counts instead of the presence/absence of fingerprints significantly changes descriptor behavior, which is crucial for performance of topological autocorrelation vectors, but not circular fingerprints. Four-point pharmacophores (piDAPH4) surprisingly lead to much higher retrieval rates than three-point pharmacophores (28.21% vs 19.15%) but still similar rank-ordering of compounds (retrieval of similar actives). Looking into individual rankings, circular fingerprints seem more appropriate than path-based fingerprints if complex ring systems or branching patterns are present; count-based fingerprints could be more suitable in databases with a large number of repeated subunits (amide bonds, sugar rings, terpenes). Information-based selection of diverse fingerprints for consensus scoring (ECFP4/TGD fingerprints) led only to marginal improvement over single fingerprint results. While it seems to be nontrivial to exploit orthogonal descriptor behavior to improve retrieval rates in consensus virtual screening, those descriptors still each retrieve different actives which corroborates the strategy of employing diverse descriptors individually in prospective virtual screening settings.
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
Handbook of Molecular Descriptors
Todeschini, R., & Consonni, V. (2000) · Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1002/9783527613106 · Cited by 4,107
Do Structurally Similar Molecules Have Similar Biological Activity?
Martin, Y. C., Kofron, J. L., & Traphagen, L. M. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm020155c · Cited by 806
Cited by
Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review
Scior, T., Bender, A., Tresadern, G., Medina-Franco, J. L., Martínez-Mayorga, K., Langer, T., Cuanalo-Contreras, K., & Agrafiotis, D. K. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci200528d · Cited by 438
Self-citationKoutsoukas, A., Monaghan, K. J., Li, X., & Huan, J. (2017) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/s13321-017-0226-y · Cited by 315
“ECFP fingerprints were selected for this study as they have been previously shown to perform well and are commonly employed in virtual screening applications [53].”
van Westen, G. J. P., Wegner, J. K., IJzerman, A. P., van Vlijmen, H. W. T., & Bender, A. (2011) · MedChemComm · doi:10.1039/c0md00165a · Cited by 176
Self-citationMyint, K.-Z., Wang, L., Tong, Q., & Xie, X.-Q. (2012) · Molecular Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1021/mp300237z · Cited by 139
Myint, K. Z., & Xie, X.-Q. (2015) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2239-0_9 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Bender, A., Jenkins, J. L., Scheiber, J., Sukuru, S. C. K., Glick, M., & Davies, J. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-01-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108-119
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W1988909822
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.79
- 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.