ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Leveraging molecular graphs for natural product classification.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemical Profiling and In Vitro Cytotoxicity Assessment of Commercial Red Yeast Rice Ingredients.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Natural Products in Epilepsy Treatment: From Traditional Medicine Towards Computational Drug Discovery.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- The Redesign of the Molecular Scaffold of Viral Ion Channel Blockers.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Untargeted Metabolomics for Profiling of Cascara, Senna, Rhubarb, and Frangula Metabolites.Metabolites · 2025Article
- Preliminary evaluation of an extract ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural Products (NPs) represent a rich source of bioactive compounds with high structural diversity and therapeutic potential. Automatic classification of NPs is critical to ensure safety, support regulatory compliance, inform product usage, and enable the discovery of new pharmacologically relevant molecules. However, traditional rule-based approaches and hand-crafted molecular fingerprints often fall short in capturing the structural and biosynthetic complexity of NPs, making their classification difficult. In this work, we explore the use of graph neural networks (GNNs) for NP classification by learning neural fingerprints directly from molecular graph structures. GNNs are well-suited for this task, as they can model both the topology and local chemical environments of molecules. We evaluate multiple GNN architectures on curated NP dataset and assess their ability to generalize across hierarchical classification targets. To promote reproducibility, we also examine implementation aspects such as graph construction, node feature selection, architecture tuning, and training strategies. Our results show that GNN-based models consistently outperform classifier based on traditional fingerprints, achieving superior accuracy and robustness. Model performance is strongly influenced by the choice of architecture and feature representation, emphasizing the importance of task-specific model design. These findings highlight the potential of GNNs as effective tools for NP classification. By leveraging graph-based representations, GNNs offer a scalable, data-driven approach that better reflects the structural and functional complexity of natural products. This work provides methodological guidance and encourages broader adoption of topology-aware deep learning algorithms in natural product research and drug discovery. Our code is available at the project page: https://bcorrad.github.io/ginestra25/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.