Evidence Hub

“Freedom of design” in chemical compound space: towards rational in silico design of molecules with targeted quantum-mechanical properties

Leonardo Rafael Medrano Sandonas, Johannes Hoja, Brian G. Ernst, Álvaro Vázquez‐Mayagoitia, Robert A. DiStasio, Alexandre Tkatchenko

Chemical Science, 2023

17 citations

Abstract

The rational design of molecules with targeted quantum-mechanical (QM) properties requires an advanced understanding of the structure-property/property-property relationships (SPR/PPR) that exist across chemical compound space (CCS). In this work, we analyze these fundamental relationships in the sector of CCS spanned by small (primarily organic) molecules using the recently developed QM7-X dataset, a systematic, extensive, and tightly converged collection of 42 QM properties corresponding to ≈4.2M equilibrium and non-equilibrium molecular structures containing up to seven heavy/non-hydrogen atoms (including C, N, O, S, and Cl). By characterizing and enumerating progressively more complex manifolds of molecular property space-the corresponding high-dimensional space defined by the properties of each molecule in this sector of CCS-our analysis reveals that one has a substantial degree of flexibility or "freedom of design" when searching for a single molecule with a desired pair of properties or a set of distinct molecules sharing an array of properties. To explore how this intrinsic flexibility manifests in the molecular design process, we used multi-objective optimization to search for molecules with simultaneously large polarizabilities and HOMO-LUMO gaps; analysis of the resulting Pareto fronts identified non-trivial paths through CCS consisting of sequential structural and/or compositional changes that yield molecules with optimal combinations of these properties.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free