Skip to main content

Compound Sets and Availability



Chemical databases come in many different types and flavours, and given that we now have UniChem up and running, and it is being actively used by at least some of you, our minds have turned a little to describing these ‘flavours’ and ‘resolutions’. One of the key things a user is interested in is how easy is it to get hold of a compound, since this is usually a key filter applied to actually doing anything with the results of a database search. The cost implications of needing to commission synthesis, or potentially try and develop new synthetic methodology to a compound are substantial, and there is a substantial literature on the computational assessment of synthetic accessibility (q.v.).

So, here is a simple five state classification that reflects the typical availability of a compounds in a chemical collection.
  1. A compound has been previously been synthesized and is readily available from chemical vendors.
  2. A compound has been previously synthesized but would require resynthesis.
  3. A compound has not been previously synthesized, but close analogues have and the compound is likely to be readily synthesizable. This class of molecule is often associated with the phrase ‘virtual library’.
  4. A compound has not been previously synthesized, and effort would be required to think about synthetic access to the compound.
  5. A compound is theoretically possible with respect to valence rules, but is so unstable that it is unlikely that it ever can be isolated in pure form and then experiments in a biofluid carried out.
Of course, all these classifications are interesting, but you can do a lot more, a lot quicker and cheaper if a compound is in set 1.

As an estimate of the likely difference in cost between these different classes, I personally, would rate the cost differences, relative to set 1, as twenty fold for set 2, forty fold for set 3, and two hundred fold for set 4 - but these are just my estimates, and there will be a big variance in these costs dependent of the exact compound, its class, etc. Others will have better or different estimates of the average cost differences between the sets (comments welcome!).

Because of the way that people have assembled chemical databases, entire primary databases tend to cluster in a similar way - for example ChEMBL is mostly 2), DrugBank is mostly 1) and GDB-17 is mostly 4). Directly from the above definition, every compound with a known bioactivity has to have been synthesized, and so ChEMBL will always be a 2) in this classification. Of course, some compounds in ChEMBL are readily available, but it is a clear minority.

When people build federated chemical databases (those with little unique primary content, but primarily add value by bringing lots of feeder databases together; for example PubChem and ChemSpider) the picture gets a little more complicated at a database level, since they are often blends of synthesized and ‘virtual’ compound sets. But the same need to indicate the availability/provenance of a structure is useful, and federated databases need to store the original primary database (which may or may not itself be available outside of the federated database). 

So, a couple of thoughts:

  • Is this classification useful to apply to the contents of UniChem? 
  • Is the following classification of the UniChem component databases useful and valid?
  1. DrugBank, PDBe, IUPHAR, KEGG, ChEBI, Array_Express, NIH_NCC
  2. ChEMBL, ZINC, eMolecules
  3. IBM, Patents, SureChem (we don’t currently have GDB in UniChem, but if it was it would be in this set.

See UniChem itself for more details of what is behind these set names.

Comments

Unknown said…
Hi John,
I just want to add a comment of clarification that ChemSpider does not accept virtual compound sets and we do ask where we think that a dataset may be virtual. However, there may be cases where chemical vendors provide a set of files that includes a mixture of synthesised and virtual data and we are not able to identify the virtual data (they often look very similar to combinatorial libraries).

A guiding principle of the ChemSpider database is that it should contain only chemical species that have been made/isolated/analysed/detected - 'real' compounds (for want of a better term).

Popular posts from this blog

UniChem 2.0

UniChem new beta interface and web services We are excited to announce that our UniChem beta site will become the default one on the 11th of May. The new system will allow us to better maintain UniChem and to bring new functionality in a more sustainable way. The current interface and web services will still be reachable for a period of time at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/unichem/legacy . In addition to it, the most popular legacy REST endpoints will also remain implemented in the new web services: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/unichem/api/docs#/Legacy Some downtime is expected during the swap.  What's new? UniChem’s current API and web application is implemented with a framework version that’s not maintained and the cost of updating it surpasses the cost of rebuilding it. In order to improve stability, security, and support the implementation and fast delivery of new features, we have decided to revamp our user-facing systems using the latest version of widely used and maintained frameworks, i

A python client for accessing ChEMBL web services

Motivation The CheMBL Web Services provide simple reliable programmatic access to the data stored in ChEMBL database. RESTful API approaches are quite easy to master in most languages but still require writing a few lines of code. Additionally, it can be a challenging task to write a nontrivial application using REST without any examples. These factors were the motivation for us to write a small client library for accessing web services from Python. Why Python? We choose this language because Python has become extremely popular (and still growing in use) in scientific applications; there are several Open Source chemical toolkits available in this language, and so the wealth of ChEMBL resources and functionality of those toolkits can be easily combined. Moreover, Python is a very web-friendly language and we wanted to show how easy complex resource acquisition can be expressed in Python. Reinventing the wheel? There are already some libraries providing access to ChEMBL d

LSH-based similarity search in MongoDB is faster than postgres cartridge.

TL;DR: In his excellent blog post , Matt Swain described the implementation of compound similarity searches in MongoDB . Unfortunately, Matt's approach had suboptimal ( polynomial ) time complexity with respect to decreasing similarity thresholds, which renders unsuitable for production environments. In this article, we improve on the method by enhancing it with Locality Sensitive Hashing algorithm, which significantly reduces query time and outperforms RDKit PostgreSQL cartridge . myChEMBL 21 - NoSQL edition    Given that NoSQL technologies applied to computational chemistry and cheminformatics are gaining traction and popularity, we decided to include a taster in future myChEMBL releases. Two especially appealing technologies are Neo4j and MongoDB . The former is a graph database and the latter is a BSON document storage. We would like to provide IPython notebook -based tutorials explaining how to use this software to deal with common cheminformatics p

ChEMBL 30 released

  We are pleased to announce the release of ChEMBL 30. This version of the database, prepared on 22/02/2022 contains: 2,786,911 compound records 2,157,379 compounds (of which 2,136,187 have mol files) 19,286,751 activities 1,458,215 assays 14,855 targets 84,092 documents Data can be downloaded from the ChEMBL FTP site: https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_30/ Please see ChEMBL_30 release notes for full details of all changes in this release:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_30/chembl_30_release_notes.txt New Deposited Datasets EUbOPEN Chemogenomic Library (src_id = 55, ChEMBL Document ID CHEMBL4689842):   The EUbOPEN consortium is an Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) funded project to enable and unlock biology in the open. The aims of the project are to assemble an open access chemogenomic library comprising about 5,000 well annotated compounds covering roughly 1,000 different proteins, to synthesize at least

Multi-task neural network on ChEMBL with PyTorch 1.0 and RDKit

  Update: KNIME protocol with the model available thanks to Greg Landrum. Update: New code to train the model and ONNX exported trained models available in github . The use and application of multi-task neural networks is growing rapidly in cheminformatics and drug discovery. Examples can be found in the following publications: - Deep Learning as an Opportunity in VirtualScreening - Massively Multitask Networks for Drug Discovery - Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set But what is a multi-task neural network? In short, it's a kind of neural network architecture that can optimise multiple classification/regression problems at the same time while taking advantage of their shared description. This blogpost gives a great overview of their architecture. All networks in references above implement the hard parameter sharing approach. So, having a set of activities relating targets and molecules we can tra