Authors:
(1) Clayton W. Kosonocky, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (clayton.kosonocky@utexas.edu);
(2) Aaron L. Feller, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (aaron.feller@utexas.edu);
(3) Claus O. Wilke, Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin and Corresponding Author (wilke@austin.utexas.edu);
(4) Andrew D. Ellington, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (ellingtonlab@gmail.com). Table of Links Abstract & Introduction
Methods
Results and Discussion
Determining Whether Canonicalization Impacts Search Behavior
Explanation of Search Behavior & Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse
Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, & more.
Supplementary Figures 3.2 Explanation of Search Behavior We find that alternative canonicalizations influence the search behavior of CheSS through changes in tokenization, which causes the CLM to weight higher-order relationships more importantly when creating embeddings. There are stark differences between RDKit and OEChem canonicalizations, notably their differences in the representation of aromatic rings. OEChem prefers the Kekulé form (C1=CC=CC=C1), while RDKit prefers to use lowercase with assumed aromaticity (c1ccccc1), and these differences, among others, result in markedly different tokenization, both in the composition and the length of the tokenized vectors (Fig. 4). Since the CLM has demonstrated a bias toward embedding molecules with similar token vector lengths and (to a lesser extent) token composition to the query (Fig. 4), a query with a different canonicalization will tokenize into a radically different token vector and thereby make the CLM more likely to return molecules with SMILES representations that are highly dissimilar from the original same-canonicalized query. Despite this behavior, and potentially because of it, CheSS searches with alternative canonicalizations found diverse chemical structures with similar functional properties, as demonstrated by patent and literature searches (Fig. 5). When CLMs are forced to go beyond simple token patterns to determine similarity, more nuanced relationships may appear. Given the nature of transformers, it is indiscernible what these relationships are, but based on our analysis we find it possible that the CLM may, for example, key on the apposition of functional groups in space, in a way similar to how receptors perceive ligands. 3.3 Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse The database used by CheSS consisted of the ∼10M molecules used as a training set for ChemBERTa, and thus it is difficult to predict the behavior of queries that differ greatly from the molecules in this dataset. In addition, very small molecules may not differ in their canonicalized representations, leading to more homogeneity between queries. Nonetheless, the method itself is extensible for use with any dataset, and may invite discussions regarding what datasets and CLMs are most useful for moving between different canonicalizations to identify functional analogues. We did not at this time explore whether non-canonicalized, yet valid, variations of SMILES strings will lead to similar results. We also note that the threat of dual use for chemical machine learning models has been a topic of discussion amongst researchers [49]. While the model used in our implementation of CheSS was unsupervised and not trained for identifying toxic molecules, a successful chemical similarity search tool carries inherent risks. We therefore advise caution in considering public implementations of these tools and recommend restricting searches to avoid queries with the potential for malicious use. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Clayton W. Kosonocky, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (clayton.kosonocky@utexas.edu); (2) Aaron L. Feller, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (aaron.feller@utexas.edu); (3) Claus O. Wilke, Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin and Corresponding Author (wilke@austin.utexas.edu); (4) Andrew D. Ellington, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (ellingtonlab@gmail.com). Authors: Authors: (1) Clayton W. Kosonocky, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (clayton.kosonocky@utexas.edu); (2) Aaron L. Feller, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (aaron.feller@utexas.edu); (3) Claus O. Wilke, Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin and Corresponding Author (wilke@austin.utexas.edu); (4) Andrew D. Ellington, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin (ellingtonlab@gmail.com). Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Methods Results and Discussion Determining Whether Canonicalization Impacts Search Behavior Explanation of Search Behavior & Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, & more. Supplementary Figures Abstract & Introduction Abstract & Introduction Methods Methods Results and Discussion Results and Discussion Determining Whether Canonicalization Impacts Search Behavior Determining Whether Canonicalization Impacts Search Behavior Explanation of Search Behavior & Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse Explanation of Search Behavior & Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, & more. Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, & more. Supplementary Figures Supplementary Figures 3.2 Explanation of Search Behavior We find that alternative canonicalizations influence the search behavior of CheSS through changes in tokenization, which causes the CLM to weight higher-order relationships more importantly when creating embeddings. There are stark differences between RDKit and OEChem canonicalizations, notably their differences in the representation of aromatic rings. OEChem prefers the Kekulé form (C1=CC=CC=C1), while RDKit prefers to use lowercase with assumed aromaticity (c1ccccc1), and these differences, among others, result in markedly different tokenization, both in the composition and the length of the tokenized vectors (Fig. 4). Since the CLM has demonstrated a bias toward embedding molecules with similar token vector lengths and (to a lesser extent) token composition to the query (Fig. 4), a query with a different canonicalization will tokenize into a radically different token vector and thereby make the CLM more likely to return molecules with SMILES representations that are highly dissimilar from the original same-canonicalized query. Despite this behavior, and potentially because of it, CheSS searches with alternative canonicalizations found diverse chemical structures with similar functional properties, as demonstrated by patent and literature searches (Fig. 5). When CLMs are forced to go beyond simple token patterns to determine similarity, more nuanced relationships may appear. Given the nature of transformers, it is indiscernible what these relationships are, but based on our analysis we find it possible that the CLM may, for example, key on the apposition of functional groups in space, in a way similar to how receptors perceive ligands. 3.3 Drawbacks, Future Improvements, and Potential for Misuse The database used by CheSS consisted of the ∼10M molecules used as a training set for ChemBERTa, and thus it is difficult to predict the behavior of queries that differ greatly from the molecules in this dataset. In addition, very small molecules may not differ in their canonicalized representations, leading to more homogeneity between queries. Nonetheless, the method itself is extensible for use with any dataset, and may invite discussions regarding what datasets and CLMs are most useful for moving between different canonicalizations to identify functional analogues. We did not at this time explore whether non-canonicalized, yet valid, variations of SMILES strings will lead to similar results. We also note that the threat of dual use for chemical machine learning models has been a topic of discussion amongst researchers [49]. While the model used in our implementation of CheSS was unsupervised and not trained for identifying toxic molecules, a successful chemical similarity search tool carries inherent risks. We therefore advise caution in considering public implementations of these tools and recommend restricting searches to avoid queries with the potential for malicious use. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Abstract

SMILES Variations Influence Chemical Search Behavior and Functional Discovery

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Alternative Canonicalizations Expand Chemical Similarity Search Capabilities

Conclusion and Future Directions for Transformer-Based Chemical Search

Alternative Canonicalizations Expand Chemical Similarity Search Capabilities

Chemical Semantic Search Uses Language Models for Molecular Similarity

Supplementary Figures for Transformer-Based Chemical Similarity Search

Chemical Language Models Improve Similarity Search With SMILES Variations

Alternative Canonicalizations Expand Chemical Similarity Search Capabilities

Conclusion and Future Directions for Transformer-Based Chemical Search

Alternative Canonicalizations Expand Chemical Similarity Search Capabilities

Chemical Semantic Search Uses Language Models for Molecular Similarity

Supplementary Figures for Transformer-Based Chemical Similarity Search

Chemical Language Models Improve Similarity Search With SMILES Variations

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps