Title |
Finding the K best synthesis plans
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Cheminformatics, April 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13321-018-0273-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Rolf Fagerberg, Christoph Flamm, Rojin Kianian, Daniel Merkle, Peter F. Stadler |
Abstract |
In synthesis planning, the goal is to synthesize a target molecule from available starting materials, possibly optimizing costs such as price or environmental impact of the process. Current algorithmic approaches to synthesis planning are usually based on selecting a bond set and finding a single good plan among those induced by it. We demonstrate that synthesis planning can be phrased as a combinatorial optimization problem on hypergraphs by modeling individual synthesis plans as directed hyperpaths embedded in a hypergraph of reactions (HoR) representing the chemistry of interest. As a consequence, a polynomial time algorithm to find the K shortest hyperpaths can be used to compute the K best synthesis plans for a given target molecule. Having K good plans to choose from has many benefits: it makes the synthesis planning process much more robust when in later stages adding further chemical detail, it allows one to combine several notions of cost, and it provides a way to deal with imprecise yield estimates. A bond set gives rise to a HoR in a natural way. However, our modeling is not restricted to bond set based approaches-any set of known reactions and starting materials can be used to define a HoR. We also discuss classical quality measures for synthesis plans, such as overall yield and convergency, and demonstrate that convergency has a built-in inconsistency which could render its use in synthesis planning questionable. Decalin is used as an illustrative example of the use and implications of our results. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 3 | 19% |
United States | 2 | 13% |
Switzerland | 2 | 13% |
Russia | 1 | 6% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
Scientists | 6 | 38% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 16 | 32% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Chemistry | 15 | 30% |
Engineering | 10 | 20% |
Computer Science | 4 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 18% |