ReviewNature protocols2025
Integration of diverse bioactivity data into the Chemical Checker compound universe.
Review in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactivity-driven prediction of antibacterial synergy using machine learning models.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Phenotypic AI-based design of cell-specific small molecule cytotoxics.Communications chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chemical signatures encode the physicochemical and structural properties of small molecules into numerical descriptors, forming the basis for chemical comparisons and search algorithms. The increasing availability of bioactivity data has improved compound representations to include biological effects (for example, induced gene expression changes), although bioactivity descriptors are often limited to a few well-documented molecules. To address this issue, we implemented a collection of deep neural networks able to leverage the experimentally determined bioactivity data associated to small molecules and infer the missing bioactivity signatures for any compound of interest. However, unlike static chemical descriptors, these bioactivity signatures dynamically evolve with new data and processing strategies. Here we present a computational protocol to modify or generate novel bioactivity spaces and signatures, describing the main steps needed to leverage diverse bioactivity data with the current knowledge, as catalogued in the Chemical Checker (CC; https://chemicalchecker.org/ ), using the predefined data curation pipeline. We illustrate the functioning of the protocol through four specific examples, including the incorporation of new compounds to an already existing bioactivity space, a change in the data preprocessing without altering the underlying experimental data and the creation of two novel bioactivity spaces from scratch, which are completed in under 9 h using graphics processing unit computing. Overall, this protocol offers a guideline for installing, testing and running the CC data integration approach on user-provided data, extending the annotation presented for a limited number of small molecules to a larger chemical landscape and generating novel bioactivity signatures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40399664What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.