Back

Chemical representation standardization needed to generalize metabolic pathway involvement prediction across the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, Reactome, and MetaCyc knowledgebases

Huckvale, E. D.; Moseley, H. N. B.

2025-04-08 systems biology
10.1101/2025.04.02.646918 bioRxiv
Show abstract

MotivationDue to the utility of knowing the pathway involvement of compounds detected in biological experiments, knowledgebases such as the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), Reactome, and MetaCyc have aggregated pathway annotations of compounds. However, these annotations are largely incomplete and are costly to obtain experimentally and curate from published scientific literature. ResultsWe constructed a new dataset using compounds and their pathway annotations from KEGG, Reactome, and MetaCyc. Using this dataset, we trained and tested an extreme classification model that classifies 8,195 unique pathways based on compound chemical representations with a mean Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.9036 {+/-} 0.0033. During model evaluation, we discovered an inconsistency in chemical representations across knowledgebases, which was alleviated by standardizing the chemical representations using InChI (IUPAC International Chemical Identifier) canonicalization. Next, we compared the MCC between compounds and their cross-knowledgebase references. The non-standardized chemical representations had a huge 0.2687 drop in MCC while the standardized chemical representations only had a 0.0384 drop in MCC. Thus, standardizing chemical representation is an essential step when predicting on novel chemical representations. Availability and implementationAll code and data for reproducing the results of this manuscript are available in the following figshare items: Manuscript main results: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28701845 CV analysis of model and dataset of prior studies: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28701590 Contacthunter.moseley@uky.edu Supplementary information<LINK TO SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL>

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
26.3%
2
Metabolites
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
3
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.7%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.7%
5
Frontiers in Systems Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
7
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.4%
10
Journal of Cheminformatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.9%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
13
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
Toxicological Sciences
41 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.1%
16
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
npj Systems Biology and Applications
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
20
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
ACS Omega
105 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Biomolecules
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%