↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of drug–endogenous human metabolite similarities in terms of their maximum common substructures

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of drug–endogenous human metabolite similarities in terms of their maximum common substructures
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13321-017-0198-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve O’Hagan, Douglas B. Kell

Abstract

In previous work, we have assessed the structural similarities between marketed drugs ('drugs') and endogenous natural human metabolites ('metabolites' or 'endogenites'), using 'fingerprint' methods in common use, and the Tanimoto and Tversky similarity metrics, finding that the fingerprint encoding used had a dramatic effect on the apparent similarities observed. By contrast, the maximal common substructure (MCS), when the means of determining it is fixed, is a means of determining similarities that is largely independent of the fingerprints, and also has a clear chemical meaning. We here explored the utility of the MCS and metrics derived therefrom. In many cases, a shared scaffold helps cluster drugs and endogenites, and gives insight into enzymes (in particular transporters) that they both share. Tanimoto and Tversky similarities based on the MCS tend to be smaller than those based on the MACCS fingerprint-type encoding, though the converse is also true for a significant fraction of the comparisons. While no single molecular descriptor can account for these differences, a machine learning-based analysis of the nature of the differences (MACCS_Tanimoto vs MCS_Tversky) shows that they are indeed deterministic, although the features that are used in the model to account for this vary greatly with each individual drug. The extent of its utility and interpretability vary with the drug of interest, implying that while MCS is neither 'better' nor 'worse' for every drug-endogenite comparison, it is sufficiently different to be of value. The overall conclusion is thus that the use of the MCS provides an additional and valuable strategy for understanding the structural basis for similarities between synthetic, marketed drugs and natural intermediary metabolites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Researcher 5 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 29%
Chemistry 5 16%
Engineering 3 10%
Computer Science 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,100,524
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#489
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,269
of 311,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.