3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extended similarity indices: the benefits of comparing more than two objects simultaneously. Part 2: speed, consistency, diversity selection

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite being a central concept in cheminformatics, molecular similarity has so far been limited to the simultaneous comparison of only two molecules at a time and using one index, generally the Tanimoto coefficent. In a recent contribution we have not only introduced a complete mathematical framework for extended similarity calculations, (i.e. comparisons of more than two molecules at a time) but defined a series of novel idices. Part 1 is a detailed analysis of the effects of various parameters on the similarity values calculated by the extended formulas. Their features were revealed by sum of ranking differences and ANOVA. Here, in addition to characterizing several important aspects of the newly introduced similarity metrics, we will highlight their applicability and utility in real-life scenarios using datasets with popular molecular fingerprints. Remarkably, for large datasets, the use of extended similarity measures provides an unprecedented speed-up over “traditional” pairwise similarity matrix calculations. We also provide illustrative examples of a more direct algorithm based on the extended Tanimoto similarity to select diverse compound sets, resulting in much higher levels of diversity than traditional approaches. We discuss the inner and outer consistency of our indices, which are key in practical applications, showing whether the n-ary and binary indices rank the data in the same way. We demonstrate the use of the new n-ary similarity metrics on t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding ( t-SNE) plots of datasets of varying diversity, or corresponding to ligands of different pharmaceutical targets, which show that our indices provide a better measure of set compactness than standard binary measures. We also present a conceptual example of the applicability of our indices in agglomerative hierarchical algorithms. The Python code for calculating the extended similarity metrics is freely available at: https://github.com/ramirandaq/MultipleComparisons

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13321-021-00504-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery

          ChEMBL is an Open Data database containing binding, functional and ADMET information for a large number of drug-like bioactive compounds. These data are manually abstracted from the primary published literature on a regular basis, then further curated and standardized to maximize their quality and utility across a wide range of chemical biology and drug-discovery research problems. Currently, the database contains 5.4 million bioactivity measurements for more than 1 million compounds and 5200 protein targets. Access is available through a web-based interface, data downloads and web services at: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembldb.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Computer Aided Design of Experiments

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?

              Background Cheminformaticians are equipped with a very rich toolbox when carrying out molecular similarity calculations. A large number of molecular representations exist, and there are several methods (similarity and distance metrics) to quantify the similarity of molecular representations. In this work, eight well-known similarity/distance metrics are compared on a large dataset of molecular fingerprints with sum of ranking differences (SRD) and ANOVA analysis. The effects of molecular size, selection methods and data pretreatment methods on the outcome of the comparison are also assessed. Results A supplier database (https://mcule.com/) was used as the source of compounds for the similarity calculations in this study. A large number of datasets, each consisting of one hundred compounds, were compiled, molecular fingerprints were generated and similarity values between a randomly chosen reference compound and the rest were calculated for each dataset. Similarity metrics were compared based on their ranking of the compounds within one experiment (one dataset) using sum of ranking differences (SRD), while the results of the entire set of experiments were summarized on box and whisker plots. Finally, the effects of various factors (data pretreatment, molecule size, selection method) were evaluated with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Conclusions This study complements previous efforts to examine and rank various metrics for molecular similarity calculations. Here, however, an entirely general approach was taken to neglect any a priori knowledge on the compounds involved, as well as any bias introduced by examining only one or a few specific scenarios. The Tanimoto index, Dice index, Cosine coefficient and Soergel distance were identified to be the best (and in some sense equivalent) metrics for similarity calculations, i.e. these metrics could produce the rankings closest to the composite (average) ranking of the eight metrics. The similarity metrics derived from Euclidean and Manhattan distances are not recommended on their own, although their variability and diversity from other similarity metrics might be advantageous in certain cases (e.g. for data fusion). Conclusions are also drawn regarding the effects of molecule size, selection method and data pretreatment on the ranking behavior of the studied metrics. Graphical Abstract A visual summary of the comparison of similarity metrics with sum of ranking differences (SRD). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0069-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                quintana@chem.ufl.edu
                heberger.karoly@ttk.hu
                Journal
                J Cheminform
                J Cheminform
                Journal of Cheminformatics
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1758-2946
                23 April 2021
                23 April 2021
                2021
                : 13
                : 33
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.15276.37, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8091, Department of Chemistry, , University of Florida, ; Gainesville, FL 32603 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.425578.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0512 3755, Plasma Chemistry Research Group, , Research Centre for Natural Sciences, ; Magyar tudósok krt. 2, 1117 Budapest, Hungary
                [3 ]GRID grid.425578.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0512 3755, Medicinal Chemistry Research Group, , Research Centre for Natural Sciences, ; Magyar tudósok krt. 2, 1117 Budapest, Hungary
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2121-4449
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8271-9841
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-9481
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0965-939X
                Article
                504
                10.1186/s13321-021-00504-4
                8067665
                33892799
                6c3173d6-4176-448b-aee2-3ab7891c9f0b
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 20 November 2020
                : 12 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal (HU)
                Award ID: OTKA, contract K 134260
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011019, Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal;
                Award ID: PD134416
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: -University of Florida: startup grant
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Chemoinformatics
                multiple comparisons,computational complexity,scaling,rankings,extended similarity indices,consistency,molecular fingerprints,sum of ranking differences

                Comments

                Comment on this article