questions on full structure search

User 8139ea8dbd

21-05-2010 22:37:47

Q1:  Is Jchem able to tell the following two entries are the same structure?
C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|
C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl


Q2: Why the results are different?
select jc_equals('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|') from dual:
returns 0; # so it seems the answer to Q1 is no.
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|', 't:e') from dual:
returns 1;

Q3: what's the difference between target & query below? Could you point me to document where describes the difference between target and query in exact/full structure search?
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|', 't:f') from dual;
returns 1;
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl', 't:f') from dual;
returns 0;

Thanks

ChemAxon 9c0afc9aaf

24-05-2010 14:12:54

Hi,


Monday is a national holiday in Hungary, but let me try to give a partial answer before the experts can comment.


Q1:  Is Jchem able to tell the following two entries are the same structure?
C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|
C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl


It depends on what is the definition of  "same".


The first structure contains 2 chiral centers in the same AND group, which represents a mixture of enantiomers.


From the query guide:


http://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/user/query_stereochemistry.html#mdl_enhanced_stereo


Stereogenic centers belonging to an ANDn group (e.g. AND1) represents a mixture of two enantiomers: the structure as drawn AND the epimer in which the stereogenic centers have the opposite configuration. (Note, that it is not a racemic mixture, but a mixture of the enantiomers of any ratio. Of course, a 1:1 mixture (racemic mixture) is included in this sense.)

On the other hand the seconds structure has unlabeled stereo centers, ans since SMILES is treated as absolute stereo, they are treated the same as if they had the ABS label, so this is not a mixture:


Stereogenic centers belonging to ABS represent absolute stereochemistry, i.e. chirality. (All unlabeled stereo centers are also thought to belong to the ABS group by default. Unlabelled stereo centers may be interpreted as an independent AND group only if (1) chiral flag is not set AND (2) the absolute stereo search options (Query/TargetAbsoluteStereo, AbsoluteStereo) are set to false. See the following sections for further explanation.)

For non-default behavior one can control the stereo matching with the following option:


http://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/dev/cartridge/cartapi.html#jc_compare_stereoSearchType 


 


Q2: Why the results are different?
select jc_equals('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|') from dual:
returns 0; # so it seems the answer to Q1 is no.
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|', 't:e') from dual:
returns 1;


Because the search modes are different.


jc_equals means  Duplicate search (formerly Perfect), its equivalent is "t:d" in jc_compare (formerly "t:p").


The second search mode is Full structure search ("t:f"), formerly exact ("t:e").  


Full structure search applies the same matching rules as substructure search (there may be some differences on query/target side and order is important), while  Duplicate search looks for exactly the same stereo properties (exact stereo matching).


From the same document:


The exact stereo option means that all stereo information should be the same in the query and target ("all stereo info is exactly the same"). It mainly has an effect when the query has no stereo information: it only matches non-stereo target. Similarly, a query with a wiggly tetrahedral center will only match wiggly tetrahedral center, and not specific R and S configurations.

 


Q3: what's the difference between target & query below? Could you point me to document where describes the difference between target and query in exact/full structure search?
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|', 't:f') from dual;
returns 1;
select jc_compare('C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl |&1:1,3|','C[C@@H](Cl)[C@H](C)Cl', 't:f') from dual;
returns 0;


 For Full structure and as well as for Substructure search the order of the query and target is important.


(but not for Duplicate search, where the order does not matter).


Apart from stereo configurations and query features implicit/explicit H atoms also have different meaning for example.


Again, the relevant parts of the Query Give  give guidance.


For stereo matching:


http://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/user/query_stereochemistry.html#tetrahedral_stereo


General link to the query guide:


http://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/user/Query.html


In this certain case the mixture "contains" the pure epimer, while it is not true the other way around.


Please let us know if you have further questions.


 


Best regards,


 


Szilard

User 8139ea8dbd

24-05-2010 16:13:26

Thanks for the anwser to Q2 & Q3.  I have been using 't:p' before we did an upgrade recently and mistakenly thought 't:p' was renamed to 't:f'. Thanks for the clarification.


Regarding Q1. The two enantiomers are actually the same structure (just a tricky structure), that's why I ask if JChem is able to tell the enantiomers are the same, therefore the mixture is identical as non-mixture. If Jchem cannot distinugish, I understand why this is a difficult example.


Thanks.

ChemAxon 9c0afc9aaf

24-05-2010 18:15:53

Hi,


Regarding Q1. The two enantiomers are actually the same structure (just a tricky structure), that's why I ask if JChem is able to tell the enantiomers are the same, therefore the mixture is identical as non-mixture. If Jchem cannot distinugish, I understand why this is a difficult example.

Sorry, indeed, I did not pay attention to the symmetry.


This is quite an expert question, but I think using "global"  stereo model should help the situation.


https://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/user/query_stereochemistry.html#stereomodels


Unfortunately I cannot see an option in the cartridge yet, so it should use the default model .


It seems the default should be "global" in the current version whenever applicable, but I vaguely remember it could have been different in earlier versions.


http://www.chemaxon.com/jchem/doc/dev/java/api/chemaxon/sss/SearchConstants.html#STEREO_MODEL_DEFAULT


Could you let us know your exact JChem version please ?


Our experts will get back to you soon.


 


Best regards,


 


Szilard

User 8139ea8dbd

24-05-2010 18:21:28

JCHEM_CORE_PKG.GETENVIRONMENT()


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oracle environment:


Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.3.0 - 64bi


PL/SQL Release 10.2.0.3.0 - Production


CORE    10.2.0.3.0      Production


TNS for Solaris: Version 10.2.0.3.0 - Production


NLSRTL Version 10.2.0.3.0 - Production


JChem Server environment:


Java VM vendor: Sun Microsystems Inc.


Java version: 1.5.0_14


Java VM version: 1.5.0_14-b03


JChem version: 5.3.0.2


JChem Index version: 5030002


JDBC driver version: 11.1.0.7.0-Production

ChemAxon a3d59b832c

25-05-2010 13:03:56

Hi Yingyao,


 


This is a very tricky structure, indeed.


 


JChem recognizes the two as different. In fact, currently every structure pairs are treated different that have different absolute stereo labelling. (I mean e.g. abs vs. and1.The unlabeled case here equals "abs". However, different numbering - e.g. and1 vs and2 - are recognized.)


 


We will try to enhance this behaviour. For example, when the wedges are used at an atom with symmetric ligands we could just ignore the enhanced labels. But I am not sure if it would help in the current case - achirality makes the question more complex.


 


I would argue that the "and" labels on are superfluous on achiral molecules. This is because "mixture" does not really exist in this case - the mirror image is the same as the original.


 


It is also a possibility to create a structure checker that would recongnize the case when the enhanced stereo is applied to an achiral molecule...


 


We will think about it, and get back here...


 


Szabolcs