Category Archives: Cheminformatics

Finding and testing a reaction SMARTS pattern for any reaction

Have you ever needed to find a reaction SMARTS pattern for a certain reaction but don’t have it already written out? Do you have a reaction SMARTS pattern but need to test it on a set of reactants and products to make sure it transforms them correctly and doesn’t allow for odd reactants to work? I recently did and I spent some time developing functions that can:

  1. Generate a reaction SMARTS for a reaction given two reactants, a product, and a reaction name.
  2. Check the reaction SMARTS on a list of reactants and products that have the same reaction name.
Continue reading →

The workings of Fragmenstein’s RDKit neighbour-aware minimisation

Fragmenstein is a Python module that combine hits or position a derivative following given templates by being very strict in obeying them. This is done by creating a “monster”, a compound that has the atomic positions of the templates, which then reanimated by very strict energy minimisation. This is done in two steps, first in RDKit with an extracted frozen neighbourhood and then in PyRosetta within a flexible protein. The mapping for both combinations and placements are complicated, but I will focus here on a particular step the minimisation, primarily in answer to an enquiry, namely how does the RDKit minimisation work.

Continue reading →

Demystifying the thermodynamics of ligand binding

Chemoinformatics uses a curious jumble of terms from thermodynamics, wet-lab techniques and statistical terminology, which is at its most jarring, it could be argued, in machine learning. In some datasets one often sees pIC50, pEC50, pKi and pKD, in discussion sections a medchemist may talk casually of entropy, whereas in the world of molecular mechanics everything is internal energy. Herein I hope to address some common misconceptions and unify these concepts.

Continue reading →

Conference feedback — with a difference

At OPIG Group Meetings, it’s customary to give “Conference Feedback” whenever any of us has recently attended a conference. Typically, people highlight the most interesting talks—either to them or others in the group.

Having just returned from the 6th RSC-BMCS / RSC-CICAG AI in Chemistry Symposium, it was my turn last week. But instead of the usual perspective—of an attendee—I spoke briefly about how to organize a conference.

Continue reading →

A Simple Way to Quantify the Similarity Between Two Sets of Molecules

When designing machine learning algorithms with the aim of accelerating the discovery of novel and more effective therapeutics, we often care deeply about their ability to generalise to new regions of chemical space and accurately predict the properties of molecules that are structurally or functionally dissimilar to the ones we have already explored. To evaluate the performance of algorithms in such an out-of-distribution setting, it is essential that we are able to quantify the data shift that is induced by the train-test splits that we rely on to decide which model to deploy in production.

For our recent ICML 2023 paper Drug Discovery under Covariate Shift with Domain-Informed Prior Distributions over Functions, we chose to quantify the distributional similarity between two sets of molecules through the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD).

Continue reading →

A simple criterion can conceal a multitude of chemical and structural sins

We’ve been investigating deep learning-based protein-ligand docking methods which often claim to be able to generate ligand binding modes within 2Å RMSD of the experimental one. We found, however, this simple criterion can conceal a multitude of chemical and structural sins…

X-ray crystal structure of ligand in PDB ID 1t9b.
Intertwined rings of the ligand from 1t9b.

DeepDock attempted to generate the ligand binding mode from PDB ID 1t9b
(light blue carbons, left), but gave pretzeled rings instead (white carbons, right).

Continue reading →

Placeholder compounds: distraction vs. accuracy

When showcasing an approach in computational chemistry, an example molecule is required as a placeholder. But which to chose from? I would classify there different approaches: choosing a recognisable molecules, a top selling drugs, or a randomly sketched compound.

At a recent conference, Sheffield Cheminformatics 2023, I saw examples of all three and one problem I had that some placeholders distracted me into searching to figure out what it was.

Continue reading →

9th Joint Sheffield Conference on Cheminformatics

Over the next few days, researchers from around the world will be gathering in Sheffield for the 9th Joint Sheffield Conference on Cheminformatics. As one of the organizers (wearing my Molecular Graphics and Modeling Society ‘hat’), I can say we have an exciting array of speakers and sessions:

  • De Novo Design
  • Open Science
  • Chemical Space
  • Physics-based Modelling
  • Machine Learning
  • Property Prediction
  • Virtual Screening
  • Case Studies
  • Molecular Representations

It has traditionally taken place every three years, but despite the global pandemic it is returning this year, once again in person in the excellent conference facilities at The Edge. You can download the full programme in iCal format, and here is the conference calendar:

Continue reading →

Customising MCS mapping in RDKit

Finding the parts in common between two molecules appears to be a straightforward, but actually is a maze of layers. The task, maximum common substructure (MCS) searching, in RDKit is done by Chem.rdFMCS.FindMCS, which is highly customisable with lots of presets. What if one wanted to control in minute detail if a given atom X and is a match for atom Y? There is a way and this is how.

Continue reading →