InChI: a user's perspective

Machines first, humans second: on the importance of algorithmic interpretation of open chemistry data

The current rise in the use of open lab notebook techniques means that there are an increasing number of scientists who make chemical information freely and openly available to the entire community as a series of micropublications that are released shortly after the conclusion of each experiment. We propose that this trend be accompanied by a thorough examination of data sharing priorities. We argue that the most significant immediate benefactor of open data is in fact chemical algorithms, which are capable of absorbing vast quantities of data, and using it to present concise insights to working chemists, on a scale that could not be achieved by traditional publication methods. Making this goal practically achievable will require a paradigm shift in the way individual scientists translate their data into digital form, since most contemporary methods of data entry are designed for presentation to humans rather than consumption by machine learning algorithms. We discuss some of the complex issues involved in fixing current methods, as well as some of the immediate benefits that can be gained when open data is published correctly using unambiguous machine readable formats.

Graphical Abstract

On InChI and evaluating the quality of cross-reference links

BACKGROUND

There are many databases of small molecules focused on different aspects of research and its applications. Some tasks may require integration of information from various databases. However, determining which entries from different databases represent the same compound is not straightforward. Integration can be based, for example, on automatically generated cross-reference links between entries. Another approach is to use the manually curated links stored directly in databases. This study employs well-established InChI identifiers to measure the consistency and completeness of the manually curated links by comparing them with the automatically generated ones.

RESULTS

We used two different tools to generate InChI identifiers and observed some ambiguities in their outputs. In part, these ambiguities were caused by indistinctness in interpretation of the structural data used. InChI identifiers were used successfully to find duplicate entries in databases. We found that the InChI inconsistencies in the manually curated links are very high (28.85% in the worst case). Even using a weaker definition of consistency, the measured values were very high in general. The completeness of the manually curated links was also very poor (only 93.8% in the best case) compared with that of the automatically generated links.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed several problems with the InChI tools and the files used as their inputs. There are large gaps in the consistency and completeness of manually curated links if they are measured using InChI identifiers. However, inconsistency can be caused both by errors in manually curated links and the inherent limitations of the InChI method.