Skip to main content

Document Similarity in ChEMBL - 1


Many of you will have noticed a new section on the ChEMBL interface, specifically at the Document Report Card page, called Related Documents. It consists of a table listing the links for up to 5 other ChEMBL documents (i.e. publications aka papers) that are scored to be the most similar to the one featured in the report card. Here's an example

How does this work? There are examples of related documents sections online, e.g. in PubMed or in various journal publishers' websites. Document 'related-ness' or similarity can be assessed by comparing MeSH keywords or by clustering documents using TF-IDF weighted term vectors. Fortunately, ChEMBL puts a lot of effort in manually extracting and curating the compounds and biological targets from publications, so why not using these as descriptors to assess document similarity instead - as far as we know this is the first time this approach has been implemented?

So, here's how it works:

Firstly, for each document in ChEMBL, its list of references is retrieved using the excellent EuropePMC web services. By considering documents as nodes which are connected with an edge if one paper cites the other, a directed graph structure emerges. By doing this for all ~50K documents in ChEMBL, you get the massive graph illustrated above in Cytoscape. As a bonus, by measuring the in- and out- degree of the nodes, one could check which are the most cited papers in ChEMBL - but that's the topic of another blog post. This graph could be further annotated with protein target families, authors and institutions, as it has been elegantly done here.

Moving on, once a relationship between two documents is established, we need a way to quantify their similarity. As hinted above, we used the normalised overlap of compounds and targets reported in the two documents. This is done using the classic Tanimoto coefficient, so if doc A reports compounds (1,2,3) and doc B reports compounds (3,4,5), their compound Tanimoto similarity T is 1/5 or 0.2. Exactly the same applies for the target-based document similarity. The composite score we use to rank docs in the Related Documents section is simply the maximum of the two individual ones.

What does all that mean in practice? It means that 2 papers are listed as similar if they their reported compounds or biological targets overlap significantly (and one cites the other). For example, papers with follow-up experiments on the same candidate drug will be deemed similar, e.g. this one. The same will apply to two papers that involve kinase panel screening assays. A desirable side-effect is that by following the links, the tenacious user may traverse the whole graph displayed above! 


George & Mark 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Improvements in SureChEMBL's chemistry search and adoption of RDKit

    Dear SureChEMBL users, If you frequently rely on our "chemistry search" feature, today brings great news! We’ve recently implemented a major update that makes your search experience faster than ever. What's New? Last week, we upgraded our structure search engine by aligning it with the core code base used in ChEMBL . This update allows SureChEMBL to leverage our FPSim2 Python package , returning results in approximately one second. The similarity search relies on 256-bit RDKit -calculated ECFP4 fingerprints, and a single instance requires approximately 1 GB of RAM to run. SureChEMBL’s FPSim2 file is not currently available for download, but we are considering generating it periodicaly and have created it once for you to try in Google Colab ! For substructure searches, we now also use an RDKit -based solution via SubstructLibrary , which returns results several times faster than our previous implementation. Additionally, structure search results are now sorted by

Improved querying for SureChEMBL

    Dear SureChEMBL users, Earlier this year we ran a survey to identify what you, the users, would like to see next in SureChEMBL. Thank you for offering your feedback! This gave us the opportunity to have some interesting discussions both internally and externally. While we can't publicly reveal precisely our plans for the coming months (everything will be delivered at the right time), we can at least say that improving the compound structure extraction quality is a priority. Unfortunately, the change won't happen overnight as reprocessing 167 millions patents takes a while. However, the good news is that the new generation of optical chemical structure recognition shows good performance, even for patent images! We hope we can share our results with you soon. So in the meantime, what are we doing? You may have noticed a few changes on the SureChEMBL main page. No more "Beta" flag since we consider the system to be stable enough (it does not mean that you will never

ChEMBL 34 is out!

We are delighted to announce the release of ChEMBL 34, which includes a full update to drug and clinical candidate drug data. This version of the database, prepared on 28/03/2024 contains:         2,431,025 compounds (of which 2,409,270 have mol files)         3,106,257 compound records (non-unique compounds)         20,772,701 activities         1,644,390 assays         15,598 targets         89,892 documents Data can be downloaded from the ChEMBL FTP site:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/ Please see ChEMBL_34 release notes for full details of all changes in this release:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/chembl_34_release_notes.txt New Data Sources European Medicines Agency (src_id = 66): European Medicines Agency's data correspond to EMA drugs prior to 20 January 2023 (excluding vaccines). 71 out of the 882 newly added EMA drugs are only authorised by EMA, rather than from other regulatory bodies e.g.

ChEMBL brings drug bioactivity data to the Protein Data Bank in Europe

In the quest to develop new drugs, understanding the 3D structure of molecules is crucial. Resources like the Protein Data Bank in Europe (PDBe) and the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) provide these 3D blueprints for many biological molecules. However, researchers also need to know how these molecules interact with their biological target – their bioactivity. ChEMBL is a treasure trove of bioactivity data for countless drug-like molecules. It tells us how strongly a molecule binds to a target, how it affects a biological process, and even how it might be metabolized. But here's the catch: while ChEMBL provides extensive information on a molecule's activity and cross references to other data sources, it doesn't always tell us if a 3D structure is available for a specific drug-target complex. This can be a roadblock for researchers who need that structural information to design effective drugs. Therefore, connecting ChEMBL data with resources like PDBe and CSD is essen

In search of the perfect assay description

Credit: Science biotech, CC BY-SA 4.0 Assays des cribe the experimental set-up when testing the activity of drug-like compounds against biological targets; they provide useful context for researchers interested in drug-target relationships. Ver sion 33 of ChEMBL contains 1.6 million diverse assays spanning ADMET, physicochemical, binding, functional and toxicity experiments. A set of well-defined and structured assay descriptions would be valuable for the drug discovery community, particularly for text mining and NLP projects. These would also support ChEMBL's ongoing efforts towards an  in vitro  assay classification. This Blog post will consider the features of the 'perfect' assay description and provide a guide for depositors on the submission of high quality data. ChEMBL's assays are typically structured with the overall aim, target, and method .  The ideal assay description is succinct but contains all the necessary information for easy interpretation by database u