Literature DB >> 33536653

Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis.

Benjamin J Shields1, Jason Stevens2, Jun Li2, Marvin Parasram1, Farhan Damani3, Jesus I Martinez Alvarado1, Jacob M Janey2, Ryan P Adams4, Abigail G Doyle5.   

Abstract

Reaction optimization is fundamental to synthetic chemistry, from optimizing the yield of industrial processes to selecting conditions for the preparation of medicinal candidates1. Likewise, parameter optimization is omnipresent in artificial intelligence, from tuning virtual personal assistants to training social media and product recommendation systems2. Owing to the high cost associated with carrying out experiments, scientists in both areas set numerous (hyper)parameter values by evaluating only a small subset of the possible configurations. Bayesian optimization, an iterative response surface-based global optimization algorithm, has demonstrated exceptional performance in the tuning of machine learning models3. Bayesian optimization has also been recently applied in chemistry4-9; however, its application and assessment for reaction optimization in synthetic chemistry has not been investigated. Here we report the development of a framework for Bayesian reaction optimization and an open-source software tool that allows chemists to easily integrate state-of-the-art optimization algorithms into their everyday laboratory practices. We collect a large benchmark dataset for a palladium-catalysed direct arylation reaction, perform a systematic study of Bayesian optimization compared to human decision-making in reaction optimization, and apply Bayesian optimization to two real-world optimization efforts (Mitsunobu and deoxyfluorination reactions). Benchmarking is accomplished via an online game that links the decisions made by expert chemists and engineers to real experiments run in the laboratory. Our findings demonstrate that Bayesian optimization outperforms human decisionmaking in both average optimization efficiency (number of experiments) and consistency (variance of outcome against initially available data). Overall, our studies suggest that adopting Bayesian optimization methods into everyday laboratory practices could facilitate more efficient synthesis of functional chemicals by enabling better-informed, data-driven decisions about which experiments to run.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33536653     DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03213-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  22 in total

1.  The application of design of experiments (DoE) reaction optimisation and solvent selection in the development of new synthetic chemistry.

Authors:  Paul M Murray; Fiona Bellany; Laure Benhamou; Dejan-Krešimir Bučar; Alethea B Tabor; Tom D Sheppard
Journal:  Org Biomol Chem       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 3.876

Review 2.  Active-learning strategies in computer-assisted drug discovery.

Authors:  Daniel Reker; Gisbert Schneider
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 7.851

3.  A mobile robotic chemist.

Authors:  Benjamin Burger; Phillip M Maffettone; Vladimir V Gusev; Catherine M Aitchison; Yang Bai; Xiaoyan Wang; Xiaobo Li; Ben M Alston; Buyi Li; Rob Clowes; Nicola Rankin; Brandon Harris; Reiner Sebastian Sprick; Andrew I Cooper
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Generalized Subset Designs in Analytical Chemistry.

Authors:  Izabella Surowiec; Ludvig Vikström; Gustaf Hector; Erik Johansson; Conny Vikström; Johan Trygg
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 6.986

5.  A platform for automated nanomole-scale reaction screening and micromole-scale synthesis in flow.

Authors:  Damith Perera; Joseph W Tucker; Shalini Brahmbhatt; Christopher J Helal; Ashley Chong; William Farrell; Paul Richardson; Neal W Sach
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Predicting reaction performance in C-N cross-coupling using machine learning.

Authors:  Derek T Ahneman; Jesús G Estrada; Shishi Lin; Spencer D Dreher; Abigail G Doyle
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Optimizing Chemical Reactions with Deep Reinforcement Learning.

Authors:  Zhenpeng Zhou; Xiaocheng Li; Richard N Zare
Journal:  ACS Cent Sci       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 14.553

8.  Phoenics: A Bayesian Optimizer for Chemistry.

Authors:  Florian Häse; Loïc M Roch; Christoph Kreisbeck; Alán Aspuru-Guzik
Journal:  ACS Cent Sci       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 14.553

9.  Constrained Bayesian optimization for automatic chemical design using variational autoencoders.

Authors:  Ryan-Rhys Griffiths; José Miguel Hernández-Lobato
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 9.825

10.  Mordred: a molecular descriptor calculator.

Authors:  Hirotomo Moriwaki; Yu-Shi Tian; Norihito Kawashita; Tatsuya Takagi
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 5.514

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Potential Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiochemistry and Radiochemical Engineering.

Authors:  E William Webb; Peter J H Scott
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2021-10

Review 2.  Into the Unknown: How Computation Can Help Explore Uncharted Material Space.

Authors:  Austin M Mroz; Victor Posligua; Andrew Tarzia; Emma H Wolpert; Kim E Jelfs
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 16.383

3.  Quantum Chemical Calculations to Trace Back Reaction Paths for the Prediction of Reactants.

Authors:  Yosuke Sumiya; Yu Harabuchi; Yuuya Nagata; Satoshi Maeda
Journal:  JACS Au       Date:  2022-04-22

4.  Bayesian Optimization of Computer-Proposed Multistep Synthetic Routes on an Automated Robotic Flow Platform.

Authors:  Anirudh M K Nambiar; Christopher P Breen; Travis Hart; Timothy Kulesza; Timothy F Jamison; Klavs F Jensen
Journal:  ACS Cent Sci       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 18.728

5.  High-throughput screening of α-chiral-primary amines to determine yield and enantiomeric excess.

Authors:  Sarah R Moor; James R Howard; Brenden T Herrera; Eric V Anslyn
Journal:  Tetrahedron       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 2.388

Review 6.  Unravelling cell migration: defining movement from the cell surface.

Authors:  Francisco Merino-Casallo; Maria Jose Gomez-Benito; Silvia Hervas-Raluy; Jose Manuel Garcia-Aznar
Journal:  Cell Adh Migr       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 3.255

7.  Machine learning-accelerated design and synthesis of polyelemental heterostructures.

Authors:  Carolin B Wahl; Muratahan Aykol; Jordan H Swisher; Joseph H Montoya; Santosh K Suram; Chad A Mirkin
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 14.136

8.  Autonomous platforms for data-driven organic synthesis.

Authors:  Wenhao Gao; Priyanka Raghavan; Connor W Coley
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Machine Learning May Sometimes Simply Capture Literature Popularity Trends: A Case Study of Heterocyclic Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling.

Authors:  Wiktor Beker; Rafał Roszak; Agnieszka Wołos; Nicholas H Angello; Vandana Rathore; Martin D Burke; Bartosz A Grzybowski
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 15.419

10.  Autonomous Multi-Step and Multi-Objective Optimization Facilitated by Real-Time Process Analytics.

Authors:  Peter Sagmeister; Florian F Ort; Clemens E Jusner; Dominique Hebrault; Thomas Tampone; Frederic G Buono; Jason D Williams; C Oliver Kappe
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 16.806

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.