While chemical databases can be queried using the InChI string and InChIKey (IK) the latter was designed for open-web searching. It is becoming increasingly effective for this since more sources enhance crawling of their websites by the Googlebot and consequent IK indexing. Searchers who use Google as an adjunct to database access may be less familiar with the advantages of using the IK as explored in this review. As an example, the IK for atorvastatin retrieves ~200 low-redundancy links from a Google search in 0.3 of a second. These include most major databases and a very low false-positive rate. Results encompass less familiar but potentially useful sources and can be extended to isomer capture by using just the skeleton layer of the IK. Google Advanced Search can be used to filter large result sets. Image searching with the IK is also effective and complementary to open-web queries. Results can be particularly useful for less-common structures as exemplified by a major metabolite of atorvastatin giving only three hits. Testing also demonstrated document-to-document and document-to-database joins via structure matching. The necessary generation of an IK from chemical names can be accomplished using open tools and resources for patents, papers, abstracts or other text sources. Active global sharing of local IK-linked information can be accomplished via surfacing in open laboratory notebooks, blogs, Twitter, figshare and other routes. While information-rich chemistry (e.g. approved drugs) can exhibit swamping and redundancy effects, the much smaller IK result sets for link-poor structures become a transformative first-pass option. The IK indexing has therefore turned Google into a de-facto open global chemical information hub by merging links to most significant sources, including over 50 million PubChem and ChemSpider records. The simplicity, specificity and speed of matching make it a useful option for biologists or others less familiar with chemical searching. However, compared to rigorously maintained major databases, users need to be circumspect about the consistency of Google results and provenance of retrieved links. In addition, community engagement may be necessary to ameliorate possible future degradation of utility.

Abstract

The access and use of large-scale structure-activity relationships (SAR) is increasing as the range of targets and availability of bioactive compound-to-protein mappings expands. However, effective exploitation requires merging and normalisation of activity data, mappings to target classifications as well as visual display of chemical structure relationships. This work describes the development of the application “SARConnect” to address these issues. We discuss options for delivery and analysis of large-scale SAR data together with a set of use-cases to illustrate the design choices and utility. The main activity sources of ChEMBL,1 GOSTAR2 and AstraZeneca’s internal system IBIS, had already been integrated in Chemistry Connect.3 For target relationships we selected human UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot4 as our primary source of a heuristic target classification. Similarly, to explore chemical relationships we combined several methods for framework and scaffold analysis into a unified, hierarchical classification where ease of navigation was the primary goal. An application was built on TIBCO Spotfire to retrieve data for visual display. Consequently, users can explore relationships between target, activity and structure across internal, external and commercial sources that encompass approximately 3 million compounds, 2000 human proteins and 10 million activity values. Examples showing the utility of the application are given.

Background

Since the classic Hopkins and Groom druggable genome review in 2002, there have been a number of publications updating both the hypothetical and successful human drug target statistics. However, listings of research targets that define the area between these two extremes are sparse because of the challenges of collating published information at the necessary scale. We have addressed this by interrogating databases, populated by expert curation, of bioactivity data extracted from patents and journal papers over the last 30 years.

Results

From a subset of just over 27,000 documents we have extracted a set of compound-to-target relationships for biochemical in vitro binding-type assay data for 1,736 human proteins and 1,654 gene identifiers. These are linked to 1,671,951 compound records derived from 823,179 unique chemical structures. The distribution showed a compounds-per-target average of 964 with a maximum of 42,869 (Factor Xa). The list includes non-targets, failed targets and cross-screening targets. The top-278 most actively pursued targets cover 90% of the compounds. We further investigated target ranking by determining the number of molecular frameworks and scaffolds. These were compared to the compound counts as alternative measures of chemical diversity on a per-target basis.

Conclusions

The compounds-per-protein listing generated in this work (provided as a supplementary file) represents the major proportion of the human drug target landscape defined by published data. We supplemented the simple ranking by the number of compounds assayed with additional rankings by molecular topology. These showed significant differences and provide complementary assessments of chemical tractability.

The present article proposes the adoption of a community-defined, uniform, generic description of the core attributes of biological databases, BioDBCore. The goals of these attributes are to provide a general overview of the database landscape, to encourage consistency and interoperability between resources; and to promote the use of semantic and syntactic standards. BioDBCore will make it easier for users to evaluate the scope and relevance of available resources. This new resource will increase the collective impact of the information present in biological databases.

The present article proposes the adoption of a community-defined, uniform, generic description of the core attributes of biological databases, BioDBCore. The goals of these attributes are to provide a general overview of the database landscape, to encourage consistency and interoperability between resources and to promote the use of semantic and syntactic standards. BioDBCore will make it easier for users to evaluate the scope and relevance of available resources. This new resource will increase the collective impact of the information present in biological databases.

Background

Since 2004 public cheminformatic databases and their collective functionality for exploring relationships between compounds, protein sequences, literature and assay data have advanced dramatically. In parallel, commercial sources that extract and curate such relationships from journals and patents have also been expanding. This work updates a previous comparative study of databases chosen because of their bioactive content, availability of downloads and facility to select informative subsets.

Results

Where they could be calculated, extracted compounds-per-journal article were in the range of 12 to 19 but compound-per-protein counts increased with document numbers. Chemical structure filtration to facilitate standardised comparisons typically reduced source counts by between 5% and 30%. The pair-wise overlaps between 23 databases and subsets were determined, as well as changes between 2006 and 2008. While all compound sets have increased, PubChem has doubled to 14.2 million. The 2008 comparison matrix shows not only overlap but also unique content across all sources. Many of the detailed differences could be attributed to individual strategies for data selection and extraction. While there was a big increase in patent-derived structures entering PubChem since 2006, GVKBIO contains over 0.8 million unique structures from this source. Venn diagrams showed extensive overlap between compounds extracted by independent expert curation from journals by GVKBIO, WOMBAT (both commercial) and BindingDB (public) but each included unique content. In contrast, the approved drug collections from GVKBIO, MDDR (commercial) and DrugBank (public) showed surprisingly low overlap. Aggregating all commercial sources established that while 1 million compounds overlapped with PubChem 1.2 million did not.

Conclusion

On the basis of chemical structure content per se public sources have covered an increasing proportion of commercial databases over the last two years. However, commercial products included in this study provide links between compounds and information from patents and journals at a larger scale than current public efforts. They also continue to capture a significant proportion of unique content. Our results thus demonstrate not only an encouraging overall expansion of data-supported bioactive chemical space but also that both commercial and public sources are complementary for its exploration.

The family and motif databases, PROSITE, PRINTS, Pfam and ProDom, have been integrated into a powerful resource for protein secondary annotation. As of June 2000, InterPro had processed 384 572 proteins in SWISS-PROT and TrEMBL. Because the contributing databases have different clustering principles and scoring sensitivities, the combined assignments compliment each other for grouping protein families and delineating domains. The graphic displays of all matches above the scoring thresholds enables judgements to be made on the concordances or differences between the assignments. The website links can be used to analyse novel sequences and for queries across the proteomes of 32 organisms, including the partial human set, by domain and/or protein family. An analysis of selected HtrA/DegQ proteases demonstrates the utility of this website for detailed comparative genomics. Further information on the project can be found at the European Bioinformatics Institute at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/.