The Chemistry Development Kit (CDK) is a widely used open source cheminformatics toolkit, providing data structures to represent chemical concepts along with methods to manipulate such structures and perform computations on them. The library implements a wide variety of cheminformatics algorithms ranging from chemical structure canonicalization to molecular descriptor calculations and pharmacophore perception. It is used in drug discovery, metabolomics, and toxicology. Over the last 10 years, the code base has grown significantly, however, resulting in many complex interdependencies among components and poor performance of many algorithms. We report improvements to the CDK v2.0 since the v1.2 release series, specifically addressing the increased functional complexity and poor performance. We first summarize the addition of new functionality, such atom typing and molecular formula handling, and improvement to existing functionality that has led to significantly better performance for substructure searching, molecular fingerprints, and rendering of molecules. Second, we outline how the CDK has evolved with respect to quality control and the approaches we have adopted to ensure stability, including a code review mechanism. This paper highlights our continued efforts to provide a community driven, open source cheminformatics library, and shows that such collaborative projects can thrive over extended periods of time, resulting in a high-quality and performant library. By taking advantage of community support and contributions, we show that an open source cheminformatics project can act as a peer reviewed publishing platform for scientific computing software.

Artificial intelligence, deep convolutional neural networks, and deep learning are all niche terms that are increasingly appearing in scientific presentations as well as in the general media. In this review, we focus on deep learning and how it is applied to microscopy image data of cells and tissue samples. Starting with an analogy to neuroscience, we aim to give the reader an overview of the key concepts of neural networks, and an understanding of how deep learning differs from more classical approaches for extracting information from image data. We aim to increase the understanding of these methods, while highlighting considerations regarding input data requirements, computational resources, challenges, and limitations. We do not provide a full manual for applying these methods to your own data, but rather review previously published articles on deep learning in image cytometry, and guide the readers toward further reading on specific networks and methods, including new methods not yet applied to cytometry data. © 2018 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

The reproducibility of experiments has been a long standing impediment for further scientific progress. Computational methods have been instrumental in drug discovery efforts owing to its multifaceted utilization for data collection, pre-processing, analysis and inference. This article provides an in-depth coverage on the reproducibility of computational drug discovery. This review explores the following topics: (1) the current state-of-the-art on reproducible research, (2) research documentation (e.g. electronic laboratory notebook, Jupyter notebook, etc.), (3) science of reproducible research (i.e. comparison and contrast with related concepts as replicability, reusability and reliability), (4) model development in computational drug discovery, (5) computational issues on model development and deployment, (6) use case scenarios for streamlining the computational drug discovery protocol. In computational disciplines, it has become common practice to share data and programming codes used for numerical calculations as to not only facilitate reproducibility, but also to foster collaborations (i.e. to drive the project further by introducing new ideas, growing the data, augmenting the code, etc.). It is therefore inevitable that the field of computational drug design would adopt an open approach towards the collection, curation and sharing of data/code.

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly valuable for predicting molecular properties and toxicity in drug discovery. However, toxicity-related end points have always been challenging to evaluate experimentally with respect to in vivo translation due to the required resources for human and animal studies; this has impacted data availability in the field. ML can augment or even potentially replace traditional experimental processes depending on the project phase and specific goals of the prediction. For instance, models can be used to select promising compounds for on-target effects or to deselect those with undesirable characteristics (e.g., off-target or ineffective due to unfavorable pharmacokinetics). However, reliance on ML is not without risks, due to biases stemming from nonrepresentative training data, incompatible choice of algorithm to represent the underlying data, or poor model building and validation approaches. This might lead to inaccurate predictions, misinterpretation of the confidence in ML predictions, and ultimately suboptimal decision-making. Hence, understanding the predictive validity of ML models is of utmost importance to enable faster drug development timelines while improving the quality of decisions. This perspective emphasizes the need to enhance the understanding and application of machine learning models in drug discovery, focusing on well-defined data sets for toxicity prediction based on small molecule structures. We focus on five crucial pillars for success with ML-driven molecular property and toxicity prediction: (1) data set selection, (2) structural representations, (3) model algorithm, (4) model validation, and (5) translation of predictions to decision-making. Understanding these key pillars will foster collaboration and coordination between ML researchers and toxicologists, which will help to advance drug discovery and development.

The quantification and identification of cellular phenotypes from high-content microscopy images has proven to be very useful for understanding biological activity in response to different drug treatments. The traditional approach has been to use classical image analysis to quantify changes in cell morphology, which requires several nontrivial and independent analysis steps. Recently, convolutional neural networks have emerged as a compelling alternative, offering good predictive performance and the possibility to replace traditional workflows with a single network architecture. In this study, we applied the pretrained deep convolutional neural networks ResNet50, InceptionV3, and InceptionResnetV2 to predict cell mechanisms of action in response to chemical perturbations for two cell profiling datasets from the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection. These networks were pretrained on ImageNet, enabling much quicker model training. We obtain higher predictive accuracy than previously reported, between 95% and 97%. The ability to quickly and accurately distinguish between different cell morphologies from a scarce amount of labeled data illustrates the combined benefit of transfer learning and deep convolutional neural networks for interrogating cell-based images.

Unreliable predictions can occur when an artificial intelligence (AI) system is presented with data it has not been exposed to during training. We demonstrate the use of conformal prediction to detect unreliable predictions, using histopathological diagnosis and grading of prostate biopsies as example. We digitized 7788 prostate biopsies from 1192 men in the STHLM3 diagnostic study, used for training, and 3059 biopsies from 676 men used for testing. With conformal prediction, 1 in 794 (0.1%) predictions is incorrect for cancer diagnosis (compared to 14 errors [2%] without conformal prediction) while 175 (22%) of the predictions are flagged as unreliable when the AI-system is presented with new data from the same lab and scanner that it was trained on. Conformal prediction could with small samples (N = 49 for external scanner, N = 10 for external lab and scanner, and N = 12 for external lab, scanner and pathology assessment) detect systematic differences in external data leading to worse predictive performance. The AI-system with conformal prediction commits 3 (2%) errors for cancer detection in cases of atypical prostate tissue compared to 44 (25%) without conformal prediction, while the system flags 143 (80%) unreliable predictions. We conclude that conformal prediction can increase patient safety of AI-systems.