Archive for the ‘similarity’ tag
I’ve just uploaded a new version of the fingerprint package (v3.3) to CRAN that implements some ideas described in Nisius and Bajorath. First, the balance method generates “balanced code” fingerprints, which given an input fingerprint of N bits, returns a new fingerprint of 2N bits, such that the bit density is exactly 50%. Second, bit.importance is a method to evaluate the importance of each bit in a fingerprint, in terms of the Kullback-Liebler divergence between a collection of actives and background molecules. In other words, the method ranks the bits in terms of their ability to discriminate between the actives and the background molecules.
On Thursay I joined Antony Williams as a guest lecturer in Jean Claude-Bradleys‘ class on chemical information retrieval at Drexel University. Using a combination of WebEx and Skype, we were able to give our presentations – seamlessly joining three different locations. Technology is great! Tony gave an excellent talk on citizen science and ChemSpider and I spoke about similarity and searching. Jean Claude has also put up an audio version.
A few days back I posted on improving query times in Pub3D by going from a monolithic database (17M rows), to a partitioned version (~ 3M rows in 6 separate databases) and then performing queries in parallel. I also noted that we were improving query times by making use of an R-tree spatial index.
I’ve wondered about this quote from the ANN page at http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mount/ANN/ .
“Computing exact nearest neighbors in dimensions much higher than 8 seems to be a very difficult task. Few methods seem to be significantly better than a brute-force computation of all distances.”
Since you’re in 12-D space, this suggests that a linear search would be faster. The times I’ve done searches for near neighbors in higher dimensional property space have been with a few thousand molecules at most, so I’ve never worried about more complicated data structures.
Has there been work on creating visualizations of “conformer envelopes”, graphical representations of the conformational space occupied (or available) to molecules. Particularly when such visualizations are used to (quickly/visually) compare whether 2 molecules can adopt the same shape – or if there are shapes of one that can’t be adopted by another.
A while back when I was investigating the use of the Ballester & Graham-Richards shape descriptors for 3D similarity searching. It turns out they perform quite poorly in enrichment benchmarks (which I’ll describe in a future post). At that time I was thinking of how Pub3D could scale to a multi-conformer version and I realized that the shape descriptors would allow me to easily visualize the “shape space” of a set of compounds. When these compounds are conformers for a molecule, one effectively gets a conformational envelope.
In a previous post, I dicussed virtual screening benchmarks and some new public datasets for this purpose. I recently improved the performance of the CDK hashed fingerprints and the next question that arose is whether the CDK fingerprints are any good. With these new datasets, I decided to quantitatively measure how the CDK fingerprints compare to some other well known fingerprints.
Update – there was a small bug in the calculations used to generate the enrichment curves in this post. The bug is now fixed. The conclusions don’t change in a significant way. To get the latest (and more) results you should take a look here.