This result sharply limits the number of molecular building blocks that chemists routinely use in their efforts to develop new drugs and substances.
Chemists in Ohio discovered that about half of all known chemical compounds in the world have an amazing similarity of 143 basic molecular structures. This result sharply limits the number of molecular building blocks that chemists usually use in their efforts to develop new drugs and substances, the researchers explain in an article published by them in the Journal of Organic Chemistry.
Researcher Alan H. Lipkus and his colleagues point out that researchers have known for many years that certain characteristics of chemical compounds, such as rings of atoms and bonds connecting them, appear time and time again in hundreds of substances such as drugs, food supplements and other common products. Scientists tend to focus on these familiar types of molecular templates in their search for the best rings, linkers and components in building new drugs while ignoring less common structures, the researchers say.
In the new study, they examined the chemical structures of more than 24 million organic compounds found in the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry, the world's most comprehensive database of these compounds. They found that half of the materials can be described by only 143 basic template shapes. By paying more attention to the multitude of other molecular templates, chemists will be able to discover a whole array of rings, connectors and other building blocks useful for future drugs and other medical, commercial and industrial products, the study concludes.
10 תגובות
Roy:
I don't know if you noticed but you were allowed to enter the discussion 🙂
Roy:
If I'm not mistaken then even though you are you - they are no longer with themselves and they were convinced of my words.
I don't know that, of course, but that's my assessment.
I would be happy if any of them would comment on the matter.
In any case, the article does not say anything like what you are talking about.
On the other hand, if you read the first sentences of the article, you will see that it says:
"Chemists in Ohio have discovered that about half of all known chemical compounds in the world have an amazing similarity of 143 basic molecular structures. This result sharply limits the number of molecular building blocks that chemists routinely use in their efforts to develop new drugs and substances."
That is - the limitation (which they published the study to remove) is that of the 143 buildings and not the fact that only some of them are used.
If I may join the discussion,
Michael, I am with Ami and the commenter.
The explanation is that chemists limit themselves to, for example, 50 patterns out of the 143. Using the other 100 templates (for example) could lead to the new developments we are talking about.
Ami and the cool:
I think you are wrong.
There are several indications for this, the most prominent of which is the last sentence in the article:
"By paying more attention to the multitude of other molecular templates, chemists will be able to discover a whole array of rings, connectors, and other building blocks useful for future drugs and other medical, commercial, and industrial products," the study concludes.
How else would you explain the fact that the author calls on chemists to pay attention to the multitude of other molecular patterns (other, of course, than the 143)?
Michael,
I disagree with your opinion because this is subversive news that actually came to whip chemists who limited themselves to a relatively small number of compounds under the table. I don't think that's how things are supposed to be. Most of the organic compounds, as far as I understand, were actually created by nature and only a small part of them were synthesized by chemists. Meaning, 12 million compounds were tested from a general database of organic compounds and their basic structures were deduced.
I believe the sentence that made you say what you said was:
"Scientists tend to focus on these familiar types of molecular templates when choosing the best rings, linkers, and components for building new drugs while ignoring less common structures, the researchers say."
As far as I understand, those 143 basic structures were not fully known as basic structures and in this study, with the help of strong computing power and posing the right question, they found these skeletons, some of which, as mentioned, science knew about.
An equally important find that we haven't talked about yet in this talkback is the other half of materials, for which no clear pattern has been found. It is quite possible that one such exists and the calculation time to find such a pattern was limited, naturally, as usual. It is quite possible that the additional pressure will have a similar number of patterns or a much smaller number of patterns. The question is certainly interesting and it is unlikely, in my opinion, that chemists were aware of the universality of 143 or more structures in organic chemistry. They knew that there are rings and that there are connections of one kind or another, but here we are dealing with more complex structures.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Michael, there is no connection.. This is not about ways to create the compounds.. since it is not always possible to assemble a compound, directly from its building blocks.
What they actually discovered here is that the number of basic molecular structures with stable bonds is limited (until a new discovery), and there are currently only 143 basic and stable molecular structures (when they are linked). which of course can be used to form larger and longer compounds.
It's roughly like saying that all the buildings in the world are built from only 143 types of rocks/materials..
Ami and the cool:
The title is misleading and you have, in my opinion, fallen into the trap.
If I understand the author's intention correctly, then this is not a feature of nature, but a feature of the chemists who created those compounds.
In fact, the purpose of the article is to draw their attention to the fact that there are also other ways to create molecules besides the ways they have used so far.
Haha, Ami, I wrote my comment before I saw yours and I am amazed by the similarity between them
Gosh! Cool. This is an excellent discovery. Although it was a rather unexpected discovery, there is now a list of the molecular building blocks that make up all molecular chains. Is there any chance that it will help to develop compounds with the help of computers?
Beautiful! It may also say something about the evolution of organic materials, having an ancestor or ancestors.
It is very nice that today there are large computing powers that are assigned to such basic and essential research. It is less surprising (though still quite surprising) that so many compounds have a relatively low number of skeletons. And let's not forget: the material that codes for the creation of these compounds consists of units of only 4 bases (ATGC) and these code for twenty other bases (the amino acids) that create the enzymes that make up the substances.
cool research,
Ami Bachar