Literature DB >> 21819139

Learning to predict chemical reactions.

Matthew A Kayala1, Chloé-Agathe Azencott, Jonathan H Chen, Pierre Baldi.   

Abstract

Being able to predict the course of arbitrary chemical reactions is essential to the theory and applications of organic chemistry. Approaches to the reaction prediction problems can be organized around three poles corresponding to: (1) physical laws; (2) rule-based expert systems; and (3) inductive machine learning. Previous approaches at these poles, respectively, are not high throughput, are not generalizable or scalable, and lack sufficient data and structure to be implemented. We propose a new approach to reaction prediction utilizing elements from each pole. Using a physically inspired conceptualization, we describe single mechanistic reactions as interactions between coarse approximations of molecular orbitals (MOs) and use topological and physicochemical attributes as descriptors. Using an existing rule-based system (Reaction Explorer), we derive a restricted chemistry data set consisting of 1630 full multistep reactions with 2358 distinct starting materials and intermediates, associated with 2989 productive mechanistic steps and 6.14 million unproductive mechanistic steps. And from machine learning, we pose identifying productive mechanistic steps as a statistical ranking, information retrieval problem: given a set of reactants and a description of conditions, learn a ranking model over potential filled-to-unfilled MO interactions such that the top-ranked mechanistic steps yield the major products. The machine learning implementation follows a two-stage approach, in which we first train atom level reactivity filters to prune 94.00% of nonproductive reactions with a 0.01% error rate. Then, we train an ensemble of ranking models on pairs of interacting MOs to learn a relative productivity function over mechanistic steps in a given system. Without the use of explicit transformation patterns, the ensemble perfectly ranks the productive mechanism at the top 89.05% of the time, rising to 99.86% of the time when the top four are considered. Furthermore, the system is generalizable, making reasonable predictions over reactants and conditions which the rule-based expert does not handle. A web interface to the machine learning based mechanistic reaction predictor is accessible through our chemoinformatics portal ( http://cdb.ics.uci.edu) under the Toolkits section.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21819139      PMCID: PMC3193800          DOI: 10.1021/ci200207y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  19 in total

1.  A graph-based toy model of chemistry.

Authors:  Gil Benkö; Christoph Flamm; Peter F Stadler
Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug

2.  Reaction path potential for complex systems derived from combined ab initio quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical calculations.

Authors:  Zhenyu Lu; Weitao Yang
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Computational analysis of the mechanism of chemical reactions in terms of reaction phases: hidden intermediates and hidden transition States.

Authors:  Elfi Kraka; Dieter Cremer
Journal:  Acc Chem Res       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 22.384

4.  ROBIA: a reaction prediction program.

Authors:  Ingrid M Socorro; Keith Taylor; Jonathan M Goodman
Journal:  Org Lett       Date:  2005-08-04       Impact factor: 6.005

5.  Bounds and algorithms for fast exact searches of chemical fingerprints in linear and sublinear time.

Authors:  S Joshua Swamidass; Pierre Baldi
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Molecules in silico: a graph description of chemical reactions.

Authors:  Adalbert Kerber; Reinhard Laue; Markus Meringer; Christoph Rücker
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 7.  Mining chemical structural information from the drug literature.

Authors:  Debra L Banville
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 7.851

8.  Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms.

Authors: 
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 2.026

9.  Theoretical study of 1,6-anhydrosugar formation from phenyl D-glucosides under basic condition: reasons for higher reactivity of β-anomer.

Authors:  Takashi Hosoya; Yoshihide Nakao; Hirofumi Sato; Shigeyoshi Sakaki
Journal:  J Org Chem       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 4.354

10.  Tunable machine vision-based strategy for automated annotation of chemical databases.

Authors:  Jungkap Park; Gus R Rosania; Kazuhiro Saitou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  29 in total

Review 1.  QSAR without borders.

Authors:  Eugene N Muratov; Jürgen Bajorath; Robert P Sheridan; Igor V Tetko; Dmitry Filimonov; Vladimir Poroikov; Tudor I Oprea; Igor I Baskin; Alexandre Varnek; Adrian Roitberg; Olexandr Isayev; Stefano Curtarolo; Denis Fourches; Yoram Cohen; Alan Aspuru-Guzik; David A Winkler; Dimitris Agrafiotis; Artem Cherkasov; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 54.564

2.  The octet rule in chemical space: generating virtual molecules.

Authors:  Rafel Israels; Astrid Maaß; Jan Hamaekers
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 2.943

3.  Learning dynamic Boltzmann distributions as reduced models of spatial chemical kinetics.

Authors:  Oliver K Ernst; Thomas Bartol; Terrence Sejnowski; Eric Mjolsness
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2018-07-21       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 4.  Expanding the medicinal chemistry synthetic toolbox.

Authors:  Jonas Boström; Dean G Brown; Robert J Young; György M Keserü
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 5.  Automating drug discovery.

Authors:  Gisbert Schneider
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI.

Authors:  Marwin H S Segler; Mike Preuss; Mark P Waller
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Deep architectures and deep learning in chemoinformatics: the prediction of aqueous solubility for drug-like molecules.

Authors:  Alessandro Lusci; Gianluca Pollastri; Pierre Baldi
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  Development and Validation of a Deep Neural Network Model for Prediction of Postoperative In-hospital Mortality.

Authors:  Christine K Lee; Ira Hofer; Eilon Gabel; Pierre Baldi; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Learning To Predict Reaction Conditions: Relationships between Solvent, Molecular Structure, and Catalyst.

Authors:  Eric Walker; Joshua Kammeraad; Jonathan Goetz; Michael T Robo; Ambuj Tewari; Paul M Zimmerman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  COBRA: a computational brewing application for predicting the molecular composition of organic aerosols.

Authors:  David R Fooshee; Tran B Nguyen; Sergey A Nizkorodov; Julia Laskin; Alexander Laskin; Pierre Baldi
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 9.028

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.