Representation, Fingerprinting, and Modelling of Chemical Reactions

  • Muthukumarasamy Karthikeyan
  • Renu Vyas


Designing a better molecule is just one aspect of computational research, but getting it synthesized for biological evaluation is the most significant component in a drug discovery program. A molecule can be formed by a number of synthetic routes. Manually keeping track of all the available options for a product formation in various reaction conditions is a herculean task. Chemoinformatics comes to the rescue by providing a number of computational tools for reaction modelling, albeit less in number than structure property prediction software. The current computational tools help us in modelling various aspects of a given organic reaction—synthetic feasibility, synthesis planning, transition state prediction, the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters, and finally mechanistic features. Several methods like empirical, semiempirical, quantum mechanical, quantum chemical, machine learning, etc. have been developed to model a reaction. The computational approaches are based on the concept of rational synthesis planning, retro-synthetic approaches, and logic in organic synthesis. In this chapter, we begin with reaction representation in computers, reaction databases, free and commercial reaction prediction programs, followed by reaction searching methods based on ontologies and reaction fingerprints. The commonly employed quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum chemistry (QC)-based methods for intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC) and transition state (TS) determination using the B3LYP/6–31G* scheme are described using simple name reactions. Most of the computational reaction prediction programs such as CHAOS/CAOS are based on the identification of the strategic bonds which are likely to be cleaved or formed during a certain chemical transformation. Accordingly, an algorithm has been developed to identify more than 300 types of unique bonds occurring in chemical reactions. The effect of implicit hydrogens on chemical reactivity modelling is discussed in the context of bioactivity spectrum for structure–activity relationship studies. Other parameters affecting reactivity such as solvent polarity, thermodynamics etc. are also briefly highlighted for frequently used name reactions, hazardous high-energy reactions, as well as industrially important reactions involving bulk chemicals.


Chemical reaction modelling Chemoinformatics Retro-synthesis Artificial intelligence Ontologies 


  1. 1.
    Knowles JR (1980) Enzyme-catalyzed phosphoryl transfer reactions. Annu Rev Biochem 49:877–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rich PR (2003) The molecular machinery of Keilin’s respiratory chain. Biochem Soc Trans 31(6):1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMurry J, Begley TP (2005) The organic chemistry of biological pathways. In: Lehninger (ed) Principles of biochemistry. Roberts and Company Englewood, ColoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sorensen SD, Nicole O, Peavy RD, Montoya LM, Lee CJ, Murphy TJ, Traynelis SF, Hepler JR (2003) Common signaling pathways link activation of murine PAR-1, LPA, and S1P receptors to proliferation of astrocytes. Mol Pharmacol 64(5):1199–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li Y, Agarwal PA (2009) Pathway-based view of human diseases and disease relationships. PLoS One 4(2):e4346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Timberlake KC (2009) General, organic, and biological chemistry: structures of life, 3rd edn. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bersohn M, Esack A (1977) A computer representation of synthetic organic reactions. Comput Chem 1(2):103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicolaou KC, Snyder SA, Montagnon T, Vassilikogiannakis G ChemInformA: the Diels–Alder reaction in total synthesis. Cheminform 33(36).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yilmazer ND, Korth M (2013) Comparison of molecular mechanics, semi-empirical quantum mechanical, and density functional theory methods for scoring protein ligand interactions. J Phys Chem B 117(27):8075–8084Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferguson DM, Gould IR, Glauser WA, Schroeder S, Kollman PA (1992) Comparison of ab initio, semiempirical, and molecular mechanics calculations for the conformational analysis of ring systems. J Comput Chem 13(4):525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagaoka M, Okuno Y, Yamabe T (1991) The chemical reaction molecular dynamics method and the dynamic transition state: proton transfer reaction in formamidine and water solvent system. J Am Chem Soc 113(3):769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myrvold WC Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: a Maxwellian view. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 42(4):237–243Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amara P, Field MJ (2002) Combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical potentials. Encyclopedia of computational chemistry. WileyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh UC, Kollman PA (1986) A combined ab initio quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical method for carrying out simulations on complex molecular systems: applications to the CH3Cl+ Cl− exchange reaction and gas phase protonation of polyethers. J Comput Chem 7(6):718–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crehuet R (2005) The reaction path intrinsic reaction coordinate method and the Hamilton Jacobi theory. J Chem Phys 122:234105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Kamp MW, Mulholland AJ Combined quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) methods in computational enzymology. Biochemistry 52(16):2708–2728Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hao HL, Zhenyu MP, Jerry KB, Weitao Y (2008) Quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics minimum free-energy path for accurate reaction energetics in solution and enzymes: sequential sampling and optimization on the potential of mean force surface. J Chem Phys 128(3):034105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirchner B, Vrabec J, Jaramillo-Botero A, Nielsen R, Abrol R, Su J, Pascal T, Mueller J, Goddard W III First-principles-based multiscale, multiparadigm molecular mechanics and dynamics methods for describing complex chemical processes. Multiscale molecular methods in applied chemistry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–42.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moreland DW, Dauben WG (1985) Transition-state modeling in acyclic stereoselection. A molecular mechanics model for the kinetic formation of lithium enolates. J Am Chem Soc 107(8):2264–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwartz SG, Henkelman GS, Jahannesson JH (2002) Methods for finding saddle points and minimum energy paths. Theoretical methods in condensed phase chemistry. Springer, Netherlands, pp 269–302Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Z. Barton-Kellogg Olefination. Comprehensive organic name reactions and reagents. WileyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bernardi AA, Capelli M, Gennari C, Goodman JM, Paterson I (1990) Transition-state modeling of the aldol reaction of boron enolates: a force field approach. J Org Chem 55(11):3576–3581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jones M, Fleming S (2010) "Organic Chemistry", Norton, 4th edn. Chapter 19, p 932–946, 965–985.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berson J, Jones M (1964) 86, 5019Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Puy CHDe (1960) Chem Rev 60:444Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hughes P (2006) Was Markovnikov’s rule an inspired guess?. J Chem Educ 83(8):1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gaussian 03, Revision C.02, Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JA Jr, Vreven T, Kudin KN, Burant JC, Millam JM, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Barone V, Mennucci B, Cossi M, Scalmani G, Rega N, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Klene M, Li X, Knox JE, Hratchian HP, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Ayala PY, Morokuma K, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Zakrzewski VG, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Strain MC, Farkas O, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cui Q, Baboul AG, Clifford S, Cioslowski J, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Challacombe M, Gill PMW, Johnson B, Chen W, Wong MW, Gonzalez C, Pople JA, Gaussian Inc., Wallingford CT (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jaguar, version 7.9 (2012) Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spartan’10 Wavefunction, Inc.Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Christ CD, Zentgraf M, Kriegl JM (2012) Mining electronic laboratory notebooks: analysis, retrosynthesis, and reaction based enumeration. J Chem Inf Model 52(7):1745–1756Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goodman JM RInChIs and reactions abstracts of papers, 242nd ACS National Meeting & Exposition, Denver, CO, United States, August 28–September 1, 2011 (2011), CINF–40Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Holliday GL, Murray-Rust P, Rzepa HS (2006) Chemical markup, XML, and the world wide web. 6. CMLReact, an XML vocabulary for chemical reactions. J Chem Inf Model 46(1):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hendrickson JB (2010) Systematic signatures for organic reactions. J Chem Inf Model 50(8):1319–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Neches R, Fikes RE, Finin T, Gruber TR, Patil R, Senator T, Swartout WR (1991) Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine 12(3):16–36Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sankar P, Aghila G (2006) Design and development of Chemical ontologies for reaction representation. J Chem Inf Model 46:2355–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sankar P, Aghila G (2007) Ontology aided modeling of organic reaction mechanisms with flexible and fragment based XML markup procedures. J Chem Inf Model 47:1747–1762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fernandez-Lopez M, Gomez-Perez A, Pazos-Sierra J (1999) Building a 43. Chemical ontology using methontology and the ontology development environment. IEEE Intell Syst 14(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43. Accessed 1 Oct 2013
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Feldman HJ, Dumontier M, Ling S, Haider N, Hogue CWV (2005) CO: a chemical ontology for identification of functional groups and semantic comparison of small molecules. FEBS Lett 579:4685–4691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sankar P, Krief A, Vijayasarathi D (2013) A conceptual basis to encode and detect organic functional groups in XML. J Mol Graph Model 43:1–10Google Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48. Accessed 17 Oct 2013
  49. 49.
  50. 50.
    Jochum C (1994) The Beilstein information system is not a reaction database, or is it? J Chem Inf Comput Sci 34:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Blake JE, Dana RC (1990) CASREACT: more than a million reactions. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 30:394–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    ChemInform (2010) 41(01)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
  55. 55.
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
    Bode JW (2004) Computer software reviews. J Am Chem Soc 126(46):15317–15317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
    Wipke WT, Ouchi GI, Krishnan S (1978) Simulation and evaluation of chemical synthesis: an application of artificial intelligence techniques. Artif Intell 11(12):173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cheng H, Scott K (2003) An empirical model approach to gas evolution reactions in a centrifugal field. J Electroanal Chem 544:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Friesner RA (2005) Ab initio quantum chemistry methodology and applications. PNAs 102:6648–6653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mulholland A (2007) Chemical accuracy in QM/MM calculations on enzyme-catalyzed reactions. Chem Cent J 1:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Warren S, Wyatt P (2008) Organic synthesis: the disconnection approach, 2nd edn. WileyGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thiel W Semiempirical quantum-chemical methods. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational molecular scienceGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Siddiqui KA, Tiekink ERT (2013) A supramolecular synthon approach to aid the discovery of architectures sustained by C-H…M hydrogen bonds. Chemical CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Matyska L, Koca J (1991) MAPOS: a computer program for organic synthesis design based on synthon model of organic chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 31(3):380–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
  68. 68.
    Gordeeva EV, Lushnikov DE, Zefirov NS (1990) COMPASS program: combination of empirical rules and combinatorial methods for planning of organic synthesisGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gillet V, Myatt G, Zsoldos Z, Johnson AP (1995) SPROUT, HIPPO and CAESA: tools for de novo structure generation and estimation of synthetic accessibility. Perspect Drug Discov 3(1):34–50Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Socorro IM, Goodman JM (2006) The ROBIA program for predicting organic reactivity. J Chem Inf Model 46(2):606–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71. Accessed 17 Oct 2013
  72. 72.
  73. 73.
    Nicoletti C, Jain ML, Georgieva P, Azevedo SO (2009) Novel computational methods for modeling and control in chemical and biochemical process systems. In computational intelligence techniques for bioprocess modeling, supervision and control. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 99–125Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Serratosa F, Xicart J (1995) Organic chemistry in action, 2nd edn. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Siegbahn PE, Borowski T (2006) Modeling enzymatic reactions involving transition metals. Acc Chem Res 39(10):729–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zhou S, Yung Chan S, Cher Goh B, Chan E, Duan W, Huang M, McLeod HL (2005) Mechanism-based inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 by therapeutic drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 44(3):279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cooper GM (2000) The cell: a molecular approach. Sinauer Associate, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wright GD (2005) Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: enzymatic degradation and modification. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57(10):1451–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Karaman R, Fattash B, Qtait A (2013) The future of prodrugs—design by quantum mechanics methods. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 10(5):713–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Information Resource CentreNational Chemical LaboratoryPuneIndia
  2. 2.Scientist (DST) Division of Chemical Engineering and Process DevelopmentNational Chemical LaboratoryPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations