A comprehensive evaluation of advanced methods for identifying structural alerts using extensive toxicity data

With the disclosure of the important role of substructural alerts (SA) in drug development and toxicity evaluation, many automatic substructure extraction tools based on different theoretical knowledge have been reported in recent years. To compare the emphasis of various substructure extraction methods and the reliability of their results, we were encouraged to conduct a comprehensive analysis of seven representative tools to find the best one. In this paper, we introduced a well-designed evaluation of seven popular tools (Bioalerts, KRFP, MoSS, PySmash_circular, PySmash_group, PySmash_path, and SARpy) based on 43 toxicity datasets, consisting of four components: comparison of substructures derived by different methods, comparison of predictive models based on substructural rules, comparison of the efficiency of extracting toxic substructures, and the effect of SAs on quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) predictive models. The results demonstrated that PySmash_circular performed best overall, with satisfactory results in substructure information carrying and the rule-based predictive models. PySmash_path and Bioalerts were also recommended for their similar performance to PySmash_circular, but the main problem was that they took too much time and generated too many substructures. Specifically, Bioalerts and PySmash_circular could obtain substructures carrying richer information, while SARpy had the best predictive rule-based models, but it only focuses on precision (PR) value in the evaluation of individual SA. More than that, the substructures obtained by all 7 methods can enhance the recognition ability of the QSAR models for toxic compounds and make them interpretable. Finally, we have also made a baseline substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints available to the public to facilitate further development of drug research and environmental safety assessment in a rapid and accurate direction.Scientific Contribution: Based on 43 toxicity datasets, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 7 representative substructure extraction tools from both the perspective of individual substructure and substructure-based models. This work not only enables users to make more autonomous choices of the optimal substructure extraction tool, but also provides the public with a benchmark substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints, promoting the further development of computational toxicology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cheminformatics
Published
2026-01-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-026-01157-x
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A comprehensive evaluation of advanced methods for identifying structural alerts using extensive toxicity data

Shaohua Shi, S. Liu, Youchao Deng, Xinliang Li et al.
Journal of Cheminformatics
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
article

A comprehensive evaluation of advanced methods for identifying structural alerts using extensive toxicity data

Shaohua Shi, S. Liu, Youchao Deng, Xinliang Li, He Yuan-Hang, Ningning Wang, Dong-Sheng Cao
article en

Abstract

With the disclosure of the important role of substructural alerts (SA) in drug development and toxicity evaluation, many automatic substructure extraction tools based on different theoretical knowledge have been reported in recent years. To compare the emphasis of various substructure extraction methods and the reliability of their results, we were encouraged to conduct a comprehensive analysis of seven representative tools to find the best one. In this paper, we introduced a well-designed evaluation of seven popular tools (Bioalerts, KRFP, MoSS, PySmash_circular, PySmash_group, PySmash_path, and SARpy) based on 43 toxicity datasets, consisting of four components: comparison of substructures derived by different methods, comparison of predictive models based on substructural rules, comparison of the efficiency of extracting toxic substructures, and the effect of SAs on quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) predictive models. The results demonstrated that PySmash_circular performed best overall, with satisfactory results in substructure information carrying and the rule-based predictive models. PySmash_path and Bioalerts were also recommended for their similar performance to PySmash_circular, but the main problem was that they took too much time and generated too many substructures. Specifically, Bioalerts and PySmash_circular could obtain substructures carrying richer information, while SARpy had the best predictive rule-based models, but it only focuses on precision (PR) value in the evaluation of individual SA. More than that, the substructures obtained by all 7 methods can enhance the recognition ability of the QSAR models for toxic compounds and make them interpretable. Finally, we have also made a baseline substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints available to the public to facilitate further development of drug research and environmental safety assessment in a rapid and accurate direction.Scientific Contribution: Based on 43 toxicity datasets, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 7 representative substructure extraction tools from both the perspective of individual substructure and substructure-based models. This work not only enables users to make more autonomous choices of the optimal substructure extraction tool, but also provides the public with a benchmark substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints, promoting the further development of computational toxicology.

Journal of CheminformaticsVol. 18(1)
Central South University (CN), Hong Kong Baptist University (HK), National Clinical Research (US), Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (CN), Xiangya Hospital Central South University (CN), Hunan Institute of Microbiology (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.