Navigating Chemical Space: How Natural Products and Synthetic Compounds Drive Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the chemical space occupied by natural products (NPs) versus synthetic compounds (SCs), a critical consideration for modern drug discovery. We explore the foundational physicochemical and structural distinctions that define these two major compound classes, highlighting NPs' greater three-dimensional complexity, stereochemical content, and occupation of biologically relevant chemical space. The discussion covers methodological approaches—from cheminformatic analyses to innovative design principles like pseudo-natural products (PNPs)—that leverage these differences for library design and hit identification. We address key challenges such as synthetic accessibility and the 'diversity deficit' in screening libraries, proposing optimization strategies. Finally, we validate these concepts through comparative analyses of real-world drug approvals and bioactive compound collections, concluding with a forward-looking synthesis on integrating NP-inspired diversity with synthetic tractability to explore novel biological targets and combat therapeutic areas like antimicrobial resistance.

Defining the Terrain: Core Concepts and Historical Divergence in Chemical Space

The concept of "chemical space" serves as a foundational and unifying theoretical framework in cheminformatics, material science, and drug discovery. It is broadly conceptualized as a multidimensional space where each point represents a unique chemical compound, positioned based on its structural and physicochemical properties [1]. The collective set of all possible molecules, both known and hypothetical, is often referred to as the "chemical universe," which for small organic molecules alone is estimated to exceed 10⁶⁰ structures [2]. This vastness necessitates the definition and exploration of relevant chemical subspaces (ChemSpas), which are subsets distinguished by shared structural origins or functional attributes [3].

A primary and critically important division within this universe is the subspace occupied by natural products (NPs) versus that populated by synthetic compounds. Natural products, evolved through biological processes, have been the source of over half of all approved small-molecule drugs [4]. In contrast, synthetic compounds, born from human-designed chemistry, represent the bulk of modern screening libraries. Framed within a broader thesis on molecular diversity, this article explores the multidimensional framework for conceptualizing chemical space, with a focus on the contrasting characteristics, exploration methodologies, and synergistic potential of these two cardinal domains.

Defining the Axes: Key Dimensions of Chemical Space

A chemical space is defined by the chosen molecular descriptors that serve as its coordinate axes. The selection of descriptors dictates what "regions" of the space become visible and comparable. For comparing natural products and synthetic compounds, a combination of structural, physicochemical, and complexity-related descriptors is essential [5].

Table 1: Key Dimensions for Comparing Natural Product and Synthetic Chemical Spaces

Descriptor Category	Specific Metrics	Typical Range (NPs)	Typical Range (Synthetic Drugs)	Interpretation
Size & Bulk	Molecular Weight (MW)	Broader distribution, often higher	More constrained, focused on <500 Da	NPs often violate "drug-like" rules.
	Van der Waals Surface Area	Larger	Smaller	Influences binding and solvation.
Polarity & Solubility	Hydrogen Bond Donors/Acceptors	Higher oxygen content [5]	Balanced or higher nitrogen content [5]	Affects membrane permeability and target interactions.
	Topological Polar Surface Area (tPSA)	Generally higher	Generally lower	Key predictor for cellular permeability.
	Calculated LogP/LogD	Lower (more hydrophilic)	Often higher (more lipophilic)	Critical for bioavailability and distribution.
Structural Complexity	Fraction of sp³ Carbons (Fsp³)	Higher (≥0.5) [5]	Lower (≤0.3) [5]	Measures three-dimensionality.
	Number of Stereogenic Centers	Higher	Lower	Increases structural specificity.
	Number of Aromatic Rings	Lower	Higher	Synthetic libraries are often "flatter".
	Number of Ring Systems & Scaffolds	High diversity, novel scaffolds [4]	Lower diversity, recurrent scaffolds	NPs explore broader scaffold diversity.

The data reveals a consistent trend: natural products occupy a broader and more complex region of chemical space. They exhibit greater three-dimensionality (higher Fsp³), richer stereochemistry, and more oxygen-rich architectures compared to the generally flatter, more nitrogen- and aromatic-ring-rich synthetic compounds [5].

The Core Thesis: Natural Product vs. Synthetic Compound Chemical Space

The thesis central to modern drug discovery posits that the chemical space of natural products is distinct from and complementary to that of synthetic compounds. This divergence stems from their origins: natural products are shaped by evolutionary pressure for biological function and ecological interaction, while synthetic compounds are often shaped by the constraints of synthetic accessibility and historical "drug-like" design rules [4].

Quantitative Evidence: Analysis of new chemical entities (NCEs) approved between 1981-2010 shows that approximately 50% trace their structural origins to a natural product (either as the direct NP, a derivative (ND), or a synthetic compound with a natural pharmacophore (S*)) [5]. Chemoinformatic analysis confirms that drugs based on natural product structures display greater chemical diversity and occupy larger regions of chemical space than drugs from completely synthetic origins [5].

Critical Challenges: Despite their privileged bioactivity, NPs present challenges. It is estimated that only ~10% of known NPs are commercially purchasable, creating a major access barrier [4]. Furthermore, the discovery rate of novel NP scaffolds is declining, suggesting redundancy in the exploration of known biological sources [4].

Frameworks for Mapping and Comparison

The Chemical Multiverse and Consensus Descriptors

A single set of descriptors provides only one perspective. The "Chemical Multiverse" concept acknowledges that a compound collection should be analyzed through multiple, complementary descriptor sets (e.g., physicochemical properties, structural fingerprints, pharmacophoric features) to obtain a comprehensive view [6]. This is contrasted with seeking a single "consensus" chemical space. For NPs versus synthetics, this means employing descriptors that capture complexity (e.g., Fsp³, stereocenters) alongside traditional drug-likeness metrics.

The Biologically Relevant Chemical Space (BioReCS)

A more focused framework is the Biologically Relevant Chemical Space (BioReCS), which comprises all molecules with a measurable biological effect—both beneficial and detrimental [3]. Public databases like ChEMBL (containing over 2.4 million bioactive compounds) [2] and PubChem are core resources for exploring BioReCS. NPs are a historically rich subset of BioReCS, but underexplored regions include metal-containing molecules, macrocycles, and peptides beyond the Rule of 5 [3].

Figure 1: A Chemical Multiverse Analysis Workflow. The process involves generating multiple independent chemical space representations from different descriptor sets before integration and visualization [6].

Experimental & Cheminformatic Protocols

Protocol for Chemical Diversity Analysis Over Time

Objective: To assess whether the growth in a compound library's size corresponds to an increase in its chemical diversity [2].

• Data Curation: Obtain sequential version releases of a library (e.g., ChEMBL releases 1-33) [2].
• Molecular Representation: Encode all structures using one or more molecular fingerprint types (e.g., ECFP4, MACCS keys).
• Global Diversity Metric (iSIM): Calculate the intrinsic Similarity (iSIM) index. This efficient algorithm computes the average pairwise Tanimoto similarity within the entire set with O(N) complexity, avoiding the prohibitive O(N²) cost of traditional methods. A lower iSIM value indicates greater internal diversity [2].
  • Formula: iT = Σ[ki(ki-1)/2] / Σ[ki(ki-1)/2 + ki(N-ki)], where ki is the number of molecules with bit i on.
• Local Diversity Analysis (BitBIRCH Clustering): Apply the BitBIRCH clustering algorithm to the fingerprint matrix. This method efficiently groups molecules into dense clusters, identifying core (medoid) and peripheral (outlier) regions of the chemical space for each library release [2].
• Temporal Tracking: Monitor changes in iSIM, number of clusters, and Jaccard similarity of cluster compositions between releases to quantify diversity evolution.

Protocol for Comparing NP and Synthetic Drug Space

Objective: To quantitatively contrast the structural and physicochemical properties of drugs from natural vs. synthetic origins [5].

• Dataset Compilation: Curate a validated set of approved drugs, categorizing each as: NP (natural product), ND (natural product-derived), S* (synthetic with natural pharmacophore), or S (purely synthetic) [5].
• Descriptor Calculation: For each molecule, compute a panel of ~20 key descriptors (e.g., MW, HBD, HBA, tPSA, Fsp³, number of stereocenters, aromatic rings, LogP) [5].
• Statistical & Multivariate Analysis:
  • Perform statistical tests (e.g., t-test) on individual descriptors between groups.
  • Use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the descriptor matrix to reduce dimensionality. Project drugs onto the first 2-3 principal components, which capture the major variance in the data.
• Visualization & Interpretation: Plot the PCA scores. Observe the relative spread (diversity) and distinct clustering of NP-derived versus purely synthetic drugs. Calculate the volume of chemical space occupied by each group.

Figure 2: Hierarchical Map of BioReCS and Key Subspaces. The biologically relevant chemical space encompasses distinct, overlapping subspaces, with significant regions remaining underexplored [3].

Visualization of High-Dimensional Chemical Space

With libraries containing millions of compounds, visualizing chemical space is a critical challenge. Dimensionality reduction techniques are used to project high-dimensional descriptor data into 2D or 3D maps for human interpretation [7].

• Common Methods:
  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA): A linear method that finds axes of greatest variance [5].
  • t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE): A non-linear method effective at preserving local cluster structure [6].
  • Generative Topographic Mapping (GTM): A non-linear probabilistic model that generates a interpretable, grid-based map of chemical space [6].
• Application: Such maps can visually demonstrate the broader distribution of NP-derived drugs compared to the tighter clustering of synthetic drugs, and identify "white spaces" unexplored by either class [7].

Table 2: Key Resources for Exploring Chemical Space

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Chemical Space Research	Relevance to NP vs. Synthetic Thesis
ChEMBL [2] [3]	Bioactivity Database	Manually curated database of bioactive molecules with target annotations.	Serves as a core reference for the synthetic/medicinal chemistry subspace of BioReCS.
PubChem [2] [3]	General Compound Database	Largest open repository of chemical structures and biological activities.	Provides a vast landscape of commercial and synthetic compounds for comparison.
Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP) [4]	NP Database	Authoritative compendium of characterized natural products.	Defines the known NP chemical space; essential for comparative analysis.
RDKit	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Open-source software for descriptor calculation, fingerprinting, and substructure searching.	Workhorse for generating the molecular descriptors that define chemical space axes.
iSIM & BitBIRCH Algorithms [2]	Computational Algorithms	Efficient tools for calculating global diversity and clustering ultra-large libraries.	Enable quantitative analysis of diversity growth in large synthetic libraries and NP databases.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [5]	Statistical Method	Reduces descriptor dimensionality to identify major trends and visualize compound distribution.	Standard method for visualizing the distinct clustering and relative diversity of NP vs. synthetic sets.

The multidimensional framework of chemical space provides a powerful paradigm for understanding molecular diversity. The evidence strongly supports the thesis that natural products explore a broader, more complex, and evolutionarily pre-validated region of biologically relevant chemical space compared to many synthetic libraries, which are often constrained by synthetic and design conventions.

Future progress depends on:

• Integrated Exploration: Leveraging AI and machine learning to design synthetic compounds that mimic the desirable complexity and spatial geometry of NPs, thereby bridging the two subspaces [4].
• Expanding the Frontier: Systematically exploring untapped biological sources (e.g., marine organisms, extremophiles) to access novel NP scaffolds [4].
• Unified Descriptors: Developing "universal" molecular representations that can fairly encode and compare diverse chemistries, including NPs, synthetic molecules, peptides, and metallodrugs [3].
• Focus on BioReCS: Shifting library design and screening efforts towards the Biologically Relevant Chemical Space, moving beyond simple "drug-like" filters to include broader complexity and functionality [3].

By continuing to map, analyze, and navigate the chemical multiverse, researchers can more effectively harness the unique strengths of both natural and synthetic molecules for the discovery of new bioactive agents.

Natural products (NPs) represent nature's evolutionary exploration of biologically relevant chemical space, characterized by distinct and privileged physicochemical properties. Framed within the comparative analysis of NPs and synthetic compounds (SCs), this technical guide details the core structural hallmarks—including increased molecular complexity, heightened three-dimensionality, and distinct polarity profiles—that underpin their unique bioactivity and success in drug discovery [8] [9]. We present quantitative, time-dependent analyses showing that NPs have evolved to become larger and more complex, while SCs remain constrained by synthetic and "drug-like" conventions [8]. The discussion extends to evolutionary-inspired design strategies like pseudo-natural products, which aim to merge NP relevance with novel chemical space exploration [10]. Supported by structured data, detailed experimental protocols, and cheminformatic workflows, this whitepaper provides researchers with a foundational reference for navigating and leveraging the NP chemical space.

The concept of "chemical space"—the multidimensional universe defined by all possible molecular structures and their properties—provides the critical framework for comparing natural products (NPs) and synthetic compounds (SCs). NPs, the result of billions of years of evolutionary selection, occupy a distinct and biologically pre-validated region of this space [10]. In contrast, SCs, shaped by human ingenuity, synthetic feasibility, and design rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five, populate a different, often more constrained, region [8] [9].

This divergence has profound implications for drug discovery. Analyses of drugs approved between 1981 and 2010 reveal that approximately half of all small-molecule new chemical entities (NCEs) are derived from or inspired by NPs [9]. These NP-inspired drugs exhibit greater chemical diversity and occupy a broader swath of chemical space than drugs of purely synthetic origin, enabling them to address a wider range of biological targets [9]. A 2024 time-dependent chemoinformatic study further demonstrates that while the physicochemical properties of SCs have shifted over decades, their evolution is bounded by synthetic and drug-like constraints. NPs, however, have continuously evolved toward greater size, complexity, and hydrophobicity, showcasing an expanding and unique structural domain [8]. This guide deconstructs the key physicochemical hallmarks that define the NP region of chemical space, providing the tools to understand, analyze, and creatively exploit this evolutionary blueprint.

Core Physicochemical Hallmarks: A Quantitative Profile

The unique biological relevance of NPs is encoded in a set of measurable physicochemical properties that collectively differentiate them from typical SCs and library compounds. The table below summarizes these key hallmarks based on comparative analyses of large compound databases [8] [9].

Table 1: Key Physicochemical Hallmarks of Natural Products vs. Synthetic Compounds

Property	Description	Trend in NPs (vs. SCs)	Functional Implication
Molecular Complexity	Fraction of sp3-hybridized carbons (Fsp3)	Higher (More saturated, 3D structures)	Better selectivity, improved success in clinical development [9].
Stereochemical Density	Number of stereocenters normalized by molecular weight	Higher (More chiral centers)	Enables specific, high-affinity binding to complex protein surfaces [9].
Ring Systems	Number and type of rings (aromatic vs. aliphatic)	More rings, but fewer aromatic rings; more complex, fused aliphatic assemblies [8].	Provides structural rigidity and diverse topological scaffolds for target engagement.
Polarity & Solubility	Oxygen atom count, topological polar surface area (tPSA)	More O atoms, higher tPSA on average [8] [9].	Influences membrane permeability and solvation properties.
Hydrophobicity	Calculated octanol/water partition coefficient (ALOGPs)	Broader distribution, often lower for a given size [9].	Affects bioavailability and pharmacokinetics.
Molecular Size	Molecular weight (MW), heavy atom count	Larger on average, and increasing over time [8].	Potentially engages in more extensive target interactions.

A time-series analysis reveals that these hallmarks are not static. A 2024 study comparing 186,210 NPs and SCs grouped by discovery date found significant evolutionary trends [8].

Table 2: Time-Dependent Evolution of Key NP Properties [8]

Property	Trend in NPs Over Time (→ Recent)	Trend in SCs Over Time (→ Recent)	Interpretation
Molecular Weight/Size	Consistent increase	Confined fluctuation within a limited range	Advances in isolation tech allow discovery of larger NPs; SCs are constrained by "drug-like" rules.
Number of Rings	Gradual increase	Moderate increase	NPs incorporate more complex ring systems.
Aromatic Ring Count	Little change	Clear increase	SC chemistry heavily utilizes aromatic building blocks.
Glycosylation	Increased ratio and sugar ring count	Not applicable	Reflects the growing identification of complex glycosylated secondary metabolites.
Hydrophobicity	Increased	Varied, but bounded	Recently discovered NPs are more hydrophobic, possibly due to exploration of new organisms/ecologies.

Evolutionary Mechanisms and Bioinspired Design Strategies

The distinct chemical space of NPs is a product of evolution driven by organismal survival and ecological interaction. This process has been metaphorically described as nature's own drug discovery program, optimizing for biological function under complex selection pressures [10]. A groundbreaking 2025 preprint provides empirical evidence for this, using deep learning models to show that evolutionary relatedness in flowering plants and conifers correlates strongly with chemical similarity in their NP profiles. This means the phylogenetic tree can be partially reconstructed from chemical space data, validating an evolutionary blueprint for NP biosynthesis [11].

To overcome the limitations of natural discovery (e.g., low abundance, difficulty of synthesis) and expand beyond nature's explored chemical space, scientists have developed bioinspired design strategies:

• Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS): Uses conserved NP core scaffolds to generate synthetically tractable libraries with retained biological relevance [10].
• Pseudo-Natural Products (PNPs): This strategy performs a human-driven "chemical evolution" by fragmenting NPs and recombining the fragments in novel ways not found in nature. The resulting PNPs retain the privileged physicochemical hallmarks of NPs (e.g., high Fsp3, stereocomplexity) while exploring unprecedented regions of chemical space, leading to novel bioactivities [10]. A cheminformatic analysis suggests that a significant portion of historically synthesized bioactive compounds are, in fact, unintentional PNPs [10].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the conceptual process of creating pseudo-natural products as a form of human-driven chemical evolution.

Experimental Methodologies for Characterization & Analysis

Navigating the NP chemical space requires specialized experimental and computational protocols. Below are detailed methodologies for key analytical processes.

This protocol is used to compare the structural evolution of NPs and SCs over time.

• Data Curation: Compile two large molecular datasets: one for NPs (e.g., from Dictionary of Natural Products) and one for SCs (amalgamated from multiple commercial databases). Standardize structures (e.g., remove salts, canonicalize tautomers).
• Temporal Sorting: Sort molecules within each dataset chronologically by their date of discovery or registration, using a proxy like CAS Registry Number. Divide the sorted lists into sequential groups of N molecules (e.g., 5,000).
• Descriptor Calculation: For every molecule, calculate a comprehensive set of 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. Key descriptors include: Molecular Weight, Fraction sp3 (Fsp3), number of stereocenters, ring counts (total, aromatic, aliphatic), topological polar surface area (tPSA), and calculated LogP.
• Statistical Analysis & Visualization: Compute the average value for each descriptor within each temporal group. Plot trends over time for both NP and SC datasets. Use statistical tests (e.g., t-tests) to determine if observed differences between NPs and SCs in each era are significant.
• Chemical Space Mapping: Apply dimensionality reduction techniques (e.g., Principal Component Analysis - PCA) on the descriptor matrix to project molecules into a 2D or 3D "chemical space." Color-code points by dataset (NP vs. SC) and temporal group to visualize divergence and evolution.

This workflow is essential for identifying known compounds in complex natural extracts.

• Sample Preparation & Analysis: Extract natural material (plant, microbial) using appropriate solvents. Perform chromatographic separation (UHPLC) coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) with data-dependent MS/MS acquisition.
• Data Processing: Convert raw files to open formats (e.g., .mzML). Use feature detection software (e.g., MZmine, XCMS) to extract chromatographic peaks, align features across samples, and associate precursor ions with their MS/MS spectra.
• Database Searching: Query the ml MS/MS spectrum of each feature against public spectral libraries (e.g., GNPS). Simultaneously, calculate the exact mass of the precursor ion and search it against structural databases of NPs (e.g., COCONUT, LOTUS) to generate a list of potential molecular formulas and structures.
• Molecular Networking: Upload all MS/MS data to the GNPS platform to create a molecular network. Clusters in the network visualize groups of structurally related metabolites, accelerating the identification of compound families and novel analogs.
• Validation: For critical hits, compare experimental data (retention time, isotopic pattern, fragmentation spectrum) with an authentic standard if available. For novel or putative annotations, further purification and NMR analysis are required for definitive structure elucidation.

The future of NP research lies in integrating multimodal data. A proposed method involves constructing a Natural Product Science Knowledge Graph.

• Data Integration: Consolidate heterogeneous data types (chemical structures, genomic BGCs, MS/MS spectra, bioassay results, literature text) into a unified graph schema. Nodes represent entities (e.g., a compound, a gene, an organism), and edges represent relationships (e.g., "is produced by," "has activity against," "co-occurs with").
• Modeling & Reasoning: Use this graph to train AI models capable of link prediction and causal inference. For example, a model could predict the biosynthetic gene cluster responsible for an uncharacterized mass spectrum or anticipate the bioactivity of a structurally novel NP based on the known activities of chemically or genetically related entities in the graph.

The following diagram outlines the integrative approach of building a multimodal knowledge graph for AI-driven discovery in natural product science.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for NP Research and Chemical Space Analysis

Category	Item / Solution	Primary Function	Key Considerations
Reference Databases	Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP), COCONUT, LOTUS, GNPS Spectral Libraries	Provide canonical structural and spectral data for NP identification (dereplication) and cheminformatic analysis [8] [12].	Coverage, data quality, and accessibility (open vs. commercial) vary. The NIH/NCCIH NP-MRD is an open NMR resource [13].
Cheminformatics Software	RDKit, OpenBabel, ChemAxon Suite, KNIME/PaDEL	Calculate molecular descriptors, perform structural standardization, scaffold analysis, and automate property profiling for large datasets [8].	Essential for executing the protocols in Section 4.1.
Analytical Standards	Authentic natural product compounds (commercial or isolated in-house)	Serve as critical references for validating chromatographic retention time, MS/MS spectra, and NMR signals during dereplication and method development.	Purity and sourcing are critical for reliable results.
Specialized Assay Kits	Cell Painting assay kits, pathway-specific reporter assays (e.g., Wnt, Hedgehog)	Enable target-agnostic phenotypic screening and mechanism-of-action studies for novel NPs or PNPs, as recommended for pseudo-NP validation [10].	Provide a broad readout of biological activity beyond single-target screens.
AI/ML Platforms	Graph database platforms (e.g., Neo4j), deep learning frameworks (PyTorch, TensorFlow)	Facilitate the construction of knowledge graphs and the development of custom models for predictive tasks in NP discovery [12].	Require significant computational resources and data science expertise.

Future Directions: Navigating the Next Frontier

The study of NP chemical space is being revolutionized by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data [7] [12]. Future progress hinges on overcoming data fragmentation by building comprehensive, FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) knowledge graphs that interconnect chemical, genomic, spectral, and biological data [12]. These graphs will empower next-generation AI to move beyond prediction to causal inference, mimicking the inductive reasoning of expert scientists to anticipate new bioactive chemotypes, predict biosynthetic pathways, and prioritize isolates for purification [12].

Simultaneously, visual navigation tools for chemical space are evolving to handle millions of compounds. Advanced dimensionality reduction and interactive mapping will allow researchers to intuitively explore the relationships between NPs, SCs, and biological targets, visually guide library design, and validate computational models [7]. These integrated computational and experimental approaches will enable a more systematic and efficient exploration of nature's evolutionary blueprint, driving the next wave of innovation in drug discovery and chemical biology.

The design and synthesis of novel compounds represent a central endeavor in modern chemistry, positioned within a vast and divergent chemical space. This space is historically and conceptually partitioned between Natural Products (NPs), evolved through biological processes, and Synthetic Compounds (SCs), engineered through human ingenuity. NPs have served as indispensable leads in drug discovery, with their complex, biologically pre-validated structures informing synthetic strategies for decades [14]. However, the scalable discovery of novel bioactive entities increasingly relies on the deliberate design and synthesis of new molecular entities. This synthetic paradigm is not merely imitative but is governed by its own distinct set of design principles and practical constraints, which simultaneously enable innovation and bound the explorable chemical space [8].

This whitepaper articulates the core principles guiding synthetic compound design—including complexity mimicry, synthetic accessibility, and property-driven optimization—and the technical constraints that shape them, from retrosynthetic logic to sustainable feedstock considerations. Framed within the broader thesis of chemical space occupation, we analyze how synthetic methodologies allow researchers to navigate between the biologically relevant but limited space of NPs and the vast, combinatorially generated space of all possible small molecules, seeking to harvest the advantages of both.

Foundational Design Principles

The design of synthetic compounds is guided by a hierarchy of principles that translate abstract goals into concrete molecular structures.

Natural Product-Inspired Design

This principle involves leveraging the privileged structural motifs and bioactivity of NPs while overcoming their inherent limitations of complexity and availability [14]. Strategies include:

• Simplification: Retaining core pharmacophores while simplifying stereochemistry and peripheral groups to enhance synthetic feasibility.
• Hybridization: Combining structural fragments from different NPs to create novel "pseudo-natural products" with unprecedented bioactivity [14].
• Diversification: Systematically modifying NP scaffolds to explore structure-activity relationships (SAR) and optimize properties.

Synthetic Tractability and Accessibility

A primary, often overriding, principle is that a designed molecule must be synthesizable within practical limits of steps, cost, and time. This has given rise to:

• Algorithmic Synthesis Planning: The use of Computer-Aided Synthesis Planning (CASP) tools to evaluate and guarantee feasible retrosynthetic pathways early in the design process [15] [16].
• Building-Block-Oriented Design: Designing molecules based on available, cheap, and diverse starting materials, a concept formalized in "starting material-constrained synthesis planning" [15].
• Modularity: Designing molecules using robust, high-yielding reaction protocols that allow for the parallel assembly of diverse analogues.

Property-Driven and Target-Aware Design

Synthesis is directed by quantitative targets for molecular properties. Key aspects include:

• ADMET Optimization: Designing for favorable Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity profiles, often encapsulated in rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five, which constrain the physicochemical property space of drug-like SCs [8].
• Transition-State Mimicry: For enzyme inhibitors, designing structures that mimic the transition state of a substrate.
• Conformational Restriction: Introducing rings or steric hindrance to lock bioactive conformations, enhancing potency and selectivity.

Defining Constraints in Synthetic Design

While principles provide direction, constraints define the boundaries of the possible. These constraints create the characteristic "fingerprint" of synthetic chemical space compared to natural product space.

Structural and Physicochemical Constraints

Comparative chemoinformatic analyses reveal systematic differences between NPs and SCs that highlight synthetic constraints [8]:

• Molecular Size & Complexity: SCs are consistently smaller and less complex than NPs. The mean molecular weight and number of rings in NPs have increased over time, while SCs remain constrained within a narrower, "drug-like" range [8].
• Ring Systems: SCs heavily favor flat, aromatic ring systems (e.g., benzene, pyridine) due to their synthetic accessibility and stability. NPs contain more saturated and stereochemically complex aliphatic ring systems [8].
• Chemical Moieties: SCs exhibit a higher prevalence of nitrogen, sulfur, and halogen atoms, reflecting common synthetic reagents. NPs are richer in oxygen-containing functional groups and exhibit greater stereochemical diversity [8].

Table 1: Comparative Structural and Property Trends: Natural Products vs. Synthetic Compounds Over Time [8]

Property / Descriptor	Trend in Natural Products (NPs)	Trend in Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Implication for Synthetic Design
Molecular Weight	Steady increase over time	Constrained within a limited range	SC design is bounded by "drug-like" property filters (e.g., Rule of Five).
Number of Rings	Gradual increase	Moderate increase, favoring aromatic rings	Synthetic accessibility favors simple, stable ring systems.
Aromatic vs. Aliphatic Rings	Predominantly non-aromatic rings	High proportion of aromatic rings	Synthetic chemistry has a bias towards flat, planar architectures.
Stereogenic Centers	High and increasing	Relatively low	Introducing complex stereochemistry is a major synthetic constraint.
Predominant Heteroatoms	Oxygen-rich	Nitrogen-rich, more halogens	Reflects the prevalent use of N-containing heterocycles and halogenation reactions in synthesis.
Chemical Space Coverage	Becoming less concentrated, more unique	More concentrated and clustered	SC libraries can suffer from redundancy and lack of novelty.

Computational and Algorithmic Constraints

The rise of in silico design introduces software and data-driven constraints:

• Retrosynthetic Search Depth: CASP algorithms like Retro* and Tango* are constrained by computational budget (e.g., maximum number of search steps) and the accuracy of single-step retrosynthesis prediction models [15].
• Reaction Rule Generalization: Template-based models are limited by the breadth of reactions in their training corpus, while template-free models may propose unrealistic disconnections [15].
• Pathway Cost Functions: Algorithms must optimize for competing costs: the number of steps, overall yield, cost of materials, and safety, often requiring multi-objective optimization [15] [16].

Sustainability and Feedstock Constraints

Modern synthesis increasingly operates under green chemistry and circular economy principles [17]:

• Feedstock Origin: A shift from petrochemicals to renewable, non-food biomass or C1 feedstocks (e.g., CO2, methanol) is a major constraint that redirects synthetic strategy [17].
• Solvent and Energy Use: Constraints on hazardous solvents and high-energy reaction conditions drive innovation towards catalytic, photocatalytic, and mechanochemical methods.
• Waste Valorization: The constraint to use waste or non-standard starting materials is formalized in synthesis planning as the "starting material-constrained problem" [15].

Experimental Methodologies and Protocols

The implementation of design principles under constraint is enabled by integrated computational and experimental workflows.

This protocol enables finding a synthetic route to a target molecule from a specific, pre-selected starting material.

• Input Definition: Specify the target molecule (in SMILES format) and the constrained starting material(s).
• Search Initialization: Use a single-step retrosynthesis model (e.g., a trained transformer network) to generate possible precursor(s) for the target.
• Guided Tree Expansion: Employ the Tango* algorithm, which uses a TANimoto Group Overlap (TANGO) cost function. This function calculates the structural similarity between a precursor node in the search tree and the desired starting material, steering the search towards pathways that incorporate that material.
• Pathway Evaluation: Expand the retrosynthetic tree iteratively. For each new node, compute its synthetic distance (estimated steps to purchasable blocks) and its TANGO similarity to the constrained starter.
• Termination & Selection: The search terminates when a pathway is found where all leaf nodes belong to the set of allowed starting materials (including the constrained one). The lowest-cost complete pathway is selected.

Experimental Protocol for Generating a Focused, Synthetically Accessible Library

• Virtual Library Generation: Use a generative model like a GFlowNet (e.g., SynFlowNet) constrained to a defined set of chemical reactions and purchasable building blocks [16]. The model is trained to optimize a reward function combining predicted bioactivity (e.g., docking score) and synthetic accessibility.
• In Silico Filtering: Filter generated molecules based on physicochemical property criteria (MW, logP, etc.) and remove Pan-Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS).
• Synthesis Planning & Prioritization: Run a CASP tool (e.g., Tango [15] or Retro [16]) on the top-ranked virtual hits. Prioritize molecules for synthesis based on short predicted routes (< 5 steps) and high overall confidence scores.
• Parallel Synthesis: Execute synthesis using automated or manual parallel synthesis techniques in a modular fashion.
• Characterization & Validation: Purify compounds and confirm structure via NMR and LC-MS. Submit to biological assay.

Diagram 1: The Synthetic Paradigm Workflow (100 chars)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for Synthesis-Constrained Research

Tool / Reagent	Specification / Example	Primary Function in the Paradigm
CASP Software	Retro, Tango [15], ASKCOS, SynFlowNet [16]	Plans feasible synthetic routes, enforcing constraints from starting materials or reaction rules.
Purchasable Building Block Libraries	Enamine REAL, MCule, Chemspace, eMolecules [15]	Provides the set of allowed starting materials for virtual library generation and synthesis planning.
Generative AI Models	GFlowNets [16], VAEs, Transformers conditioned on reactions	Designs novel molecules with high synthetic accessibility scores by construction.
In Silico Property Prediction Tools	SwissADME, RO5 calculators, Toxicity predictors	Filters virtual libraries for drug-like properties and ADMET profiles.
High-Throughput Experimentation (HTE) Kits	Pre-weighed reagent plates, catalyst kits, micro-scale reactors	Empirically explores synthetic conditions and validates computational routes rapidly.
Sustainable Feedstocks	Bio-derived solvents, C1 substrates (methanol, formate) [17]	Enables synthesis under green chemistry constraints and circular economy principles.

Discussion and Future Perspectives: Bridging the Chemical Space Divide

The synthetic paradigm is defined by the dynamic tension between the aspiration to mimic the biological relevance of NPs and the pragmatic constraints of synthetic chemistry. As evidenced in [8], SCs have not evolved to fully occupy the NP chemical space; instead, they have carved out their own distinct region, shaped by the constraints of aromaticity, synthetic feasibility, and drug-like rules. The future of the field lies in intelligently relaxing these constraints through technological advancement.

Key frontiers include:

• Automated Synthesis: Coupling CASP with robotic synthesis platforms to experimentally validate pathways and explore regions of chemical space currently deemed "unsynthesizable."
• AI-Integrated Discovery: Developing closed-loop systems where generative models propose molecules, CASP validates routes, robots synthesize, and bioassay data feeds back to improve the AI—all under defined sustainability constraints [16] [17].
• Expanding the Toolkit: Discovering new catalytic reactions and functional group transformations to break current structural biases, allowing synthetic access to more NP-like complexity and three-dimensionality.

Ultimately, the goal is not for synthetic chemistry to merely imitate nature but to master its own expanding universe of molecules. By explicitly understanding and codifying its guiding principles and constraints, the synthetic paradigm can more deliberately navigate the chemical space continuum, delivering novel compounds that are both biologically innovative and pragmatically accessible.

Diagram 2: Principles and Constraints Hierarchy (95 chars)

Table 3: Summary of Featured Computational and Experimental Methods [15] [16] [17]

Method Name	Type	Core Function	Key Constraint Addressed
Tango* [15]	Computer-Aided Synthesis Planning (CASP) Algorithm	Solves the starting material-constrained retrosynthesis problem.	Must use a specific, pre-defined starting material (e.g., for waste valorization).
SynFlowNet [16]	Generative Flow Network (GFlowNet)	Generates novel molecules from a space defined by documented reactions and buyable reactants.	Synthetic accessibility is built into the generation process, not a post-hoc filter.
Metabolic Modeling (FBA, MDF) [17]	Computational Systems Biology	Models flux in metabolic networks to design efficient biosynthetic pathways in engineered microbes.	Optimizes yield and efficiency for sustainable bioproduction from C1 feedstocks.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [17]	Sustainability Analysis Framework	Quantifies environmental impact of a synthetic process from feedstock to product.	The green chemistry constraint, minimizing environmental footprint.

The historical trajectory of drug discovery has been profoundly shaped by the dynamic interplay between Natural Products (NPs) and Synthetic Compounds (SCs). For centuries, NPs derived from plants, microbes, and marine organisms served as the primary source of medicines, leveraging billions of years of evolutionary optimization for biological interaction [18]. This paradigm experienced a seismic shift in the 1980s with the rise of combinatorial chemistry and High-Throughput Screening (HTS). The pharmaceutical industry pivoted towards SCs, anticipating that synthetic libraries would provide the vast quantities of uniform compounds needed for automated screening [19]. However, this shift did not yield the expected proliferation of new molecular entities, partly due to the limited structural diversity of early SC libraries compared to the chemical space occupied by NPs [19].

This divergence in chemical space is not merely historical but is quantifiable and evolving. Contemporary chemoinformatic analyses reveal that NPs and SCs inhabit distinct and changing regions of chemical space, characterized by differences in size, complexity, polarity, and scaffold architecture [19]. The subsequent "renaissance" in NP-inspired discovery is not a simple return to tradition but a sophisticated integration of NP wisdom with cutting-edge synthetic and analytical technologies. This review provides a technical, data-driven analysis of this historical shift, characterizes the structural divergence between NPs and SCs, and details the modern experimental frameworks—including pseudo-natural product design and genome mining—that define the current resurgence [20] [18].

The Great Divergence: A Chemoinformatic Analysis of Structural Evolution

A 2024 time-dependent chemoinformatic study of 186,210 NPs and 186,210 SCs provides a quantitative backbone for understanding the historical structural divergence between these compound classes [19]. The analysis, which grouped compounds chronologically into sets of 5,000, computed 39 key physicochemical properties, molecular fragments, and biological relevance metrics to map their evolving chemical spaces.

Core Experimental Protocol for Time-Dependent Chemoinformatic Analysis [19]:

• Data Curation: NPs were sourced from the Dictionary of Natural Products. SCs were aggregated from 12 synthetic compound databases.
• Chronological Ordering: All molecules were sorted from early to late based on their CAS Registry Numbers, serving as a proxy for discovery or synthesis date.
• Grouping: Molecules were divided into 37 sequential groups of 5,000 each for both NPs and SCs.
• Descriptor Calculation: A standardized computational pipeline was used to calculate descriptors for molecular size, ring systems, polarity, and fragment presence.
• Chemical Space Mapping: Techniques including Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Tree MAP (TMAP), and SAR Map were employed to visualize and compare the occupied chemical spaces of NPs and SCs over time.

Quantitative Analysis of Physicochemical Property Divergence

The longitudinal data reveals clear and diverging evolutionary paths for NPs and SCs, summarized in the tables below.

Table 1: Evolution of Molecular Size and Heavy Atom Count [19]

Property	NP Trend (Over Time)	SC Trend (Over Time)	Comparative Analysis (NP vs. SC)
Molecular Weight	Consistent increase.	Variation within a constrained range.	NPs are consistently larger; the gap widens over time.
Number of Heavy Atoms	Consistent increase.	Stable, with minor fluctuations.	NPs possess more heavy atoms.
Molecular Volume/Surface Area	Consistent increase.	Limited variation.	NPs are bulkier and have larger surface areas.

Table 2: Evolution of Ring System Properties [19]

Property	NP Trend (Over Time)	SC Trend (Over Time)	Comparative Analysis (NP vs. SC)
Total Number of Rings	Gradual increase.	Moderate increase.	NPs have more rings on average.
Aromatic Rings	Remains relatively low and stable.	Significant and consistent increase.	SCs are dominated by aromatic rings (e.g., benzene derivatives).
Non-Aromatic Rings	Gradual increase.	Stable or slightly decreasing.	The majority of rings in NPs are non-aromatic.
Ring Assemblies	Increases, indicating larger fused systems.	Increases.	NPs have fewer but larger fused ring assemblies (e.g., bridged rings).
4-Membered Rings	Stable.	Sharp increase post-2009.	Reflects a synthetic trend to improve pharmacokinetics [19].

Table 3: Evolution of Molecular Polarity and Drug-Likeness [19]

Property	NP Trend (Over Time)	SC Trend (Over Time)	Implication
AlogP (Lipophilicity)	Increases (more hydrophobic).	Stable within "drug-like" range.	Modern NPs are more hydrophobic; SCs are optimized for membrane permeability.
Fraction of sp3 Carbons (Fsp3)	Consistently high.	Lower and stable.	NPs are more three-dimensional and complex [18].
Number of Hydrogen Bond Donors/Acceptors	Increases.	More constrained.	NPs have richer polar interaction potential.

The study concludes that while SCs have evolved, their evolution is constrained by synthetic accessibility and drug-like rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five. In contrast, NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, a trend attributed to advances in the isolation and characterization of challenging molecules [19]. Furthermore, the chemical space of NPs has become less concentrated and more unique compared to the more clustered space of SCs.

The Renaissance Toolkit: Modern Strategies for Bridging Chemical Space

The recognition of the valuable, under-explored chemical space of NPs has fueled a renaissance centered on innovative strategies to access NP-like complexity with synthetic feasibility. Two paramount approaches are pseudo-natural product design and genome-mining-driven discovery.

Strategy 1: Pseudo-Natural Product (PsNP) Design & Synthesis

The PsNP strategy is a fragment-based design principle that performs a "chemical evolution" of NP structure [20]. It involves deconstructing known NPs into biologically relevant fragments and recombining them in novel ways not observed in nature, creating unprecedented scaffolds that occupy new regions of chemical space while retaining biological relevance.

Diagram 1: The Pseudo-Natural Product (PsNP) Design and Discovery Workflow [20]

Key Experimental Protocol for PsNP Development [20]:

• Fragment Identification: Select privileged, biologically relevant substructures (fragments) from complex NP scaffolds using retrosynthetic or logic-based analysis.
• Recombination Design: Chemoinformatically design novel connections between fragments (e.g., via spiro, fused, or bridged linkages) to ensure exploration of new chemical space.
• Divergent Synthesis: Develop a scalable synthetic route that allows for the systematic variation of fragments and connection points, generating a focused library of PsNPs.
• Biological Evaluation: Employ target-agnostic, phenotypic screening platforms (e.g., cell painting, zebrafish models) to identify hits with novel bioactivity.
• Mechanism-of-Action Studies: Use chemoproteomics, transcriptomics, or CRISPR-based tools to deconvolute the target and pathway of active PsNPs.

Strategy 2: Genome Mining & Sustainable Biosynthesis

This strategy leverages genomics to access the vast reservoir of cryptic or silent biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) in microorganisms, which encode for NPs that are not produced under standard laboratory conditions [18].

Diagram 2: Modern Genome Mining Pipeline for Novel NP Discovery [18]

Key Experimental Protocol for Genome Mining [18]:

• Genome Sequencing & Assembly: Perform whole-genome sequencing of a promising microbial strain or metagenomic analysis of an environmental sample.
• BGC Prediction: Use bioinformatics tools (e.g., antiSMASH, DeepBGC) to identify and annotate BGCs within the genomic data.
• Heterologous Expression: Clone the target BGC into a suitable expression host (e.g., Streptomyces, E. coli chassis) optimized for NP production.
• Metabolite Analysis: Analyze the metabolic output of the engineered host using LC-MS/MS and compare against spectral databases (e.g., GNPS) for dereplication and novel compound identification.
• Scale-up & Engineering: Employ synthetic biology and fermentation optimization to sustainably produce the bioactive NP at scale.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Platforms

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NP/SC Renaissance Research

Category	Item/Platform	Function & Rationale	Key Source
Cheminformatics	RDKit (Open-source)	Calculates molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and performs scaffold analysis for chemical space comparison.	[19] [20]
Bioinformatics	antiSMASH, DeepBGC	Predicts and analyzes biosynthetic gene clusters from genomic data to prioritize novel NP discovery.	[18]
Analytical Chemistry	LC-MS/MS coupled with GNPS	Provides high-resolution metabolomic profiling and crowdsourced spectral matching for rapid NP dereplication and identification.	[18]
Synthesis	Building Blocks for PsNPs	Commercially available or custom-synthesized NP-derived fragments (e.g., decalin, indole, lactone units) for combinatorial synthesis.	[20]
Screening	Phenotypic Screening Platforms (e.g., high-content imaging, zebrafish models)	Enables target-agnostic discovery of bioactive compounds with novel mechanisms of action from PsNP or NP libraries.	[20]
Biology	CRISPR-Cas Tools	Used for activating silent BGCs in native hosts or for genetic manipulation of heterologous expression chassis to optimize NP yield.	[18]

Integration and Future Trajectory: Navigating the Hybrid Chemical Space

The future of drug discovery lies in the intentional navigation of the hybrid chemical space that integrates the strengths of both NPs and SCs. This is embodied by the convergence of the strategies above with artificial intelligence.

Diagram 3: Convergence of NP and SC Spaces for Future Drug Discovery

AI models trained on the structural and bioactivity data of both NPs and SCs can now generate novel molecular structures that idealize desired properties: the biological relevance and complexity of NPs with the synthetic accessibility and optimized pharmacokinetics of SCs [21] [18]. This, combined with sustainable sourcing via genome mining and green chemistry principles, forms the core of the modern renaissance [18]. The goal is no longer to choose between NPs or SCs, but to intelligently explore the continuum between them to discover drugs with unprecedented mechanisms of action to tackle evolving medical challenges.

The systematic exploration of chemical space—the theoretical universe of all possible organic molecules—remains a central challenge in drug discovery. Within this vast expanse, two major continents are delineated: the evolutionarily refined domain of Natural Products (NPs) and the human-engineered realm of Synthetic Compounds (SCs). This technical guide quantifies the scale and accessibility of NP and SC collections, framing the analysis within the critical thesis that these collections occupy distinct, yet complementary, regions of chemical space. While NPs, shaped by millions of years of biological selection, offer unparalleled structural diversity and biological relevance, SCs, governed by synthetic logic and "drug-likeness" rules, provide unparalleled scale and modification tractability [9] [8]. The strategic integration of both sources is key to broadening the scope of addressable biological targets. Recent cheminformatic analyses confirm that drugs based on NP structures (including natural products, derivatives, and synthetic mimics) exhibit greater chemical diversity and occupy larger regions of chemical space than drugs from completely synthetic origins [9]. This guide provides researchers with a quantitative framework and methodological toolkit to navigate these complementary libraries effectively.

Quantitative Scale of NP and SC Libraries

The sheer volume of known chemical entities differs dramatically between natural and synthetic origins, reflecting their distinct discovery paradigms. Synthetic compound libraries, fueled by combinatorial chemistry and automated synthesis, have expanded into the hundreds of millions [8]. In contrast, the total identified natural product space is estimated at approximately 1.1 million unique structures [8]. This disparity in scale is a direct consequence of accessibility: SC libraries are designed for high-throughput exploration, while NP discovery is limited by extraction, isolation, and characterization bottlenecks.

A time-dependent analysis reveals evolutionary trends in both libraries. NPs discovered in recent decades have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic on average, as advancements in analytical techniques allow scientists to isolate and characterize more challenging molecules [8]. Conversely, the average physicochemical properties of SCs have shifted within a much narrower range, constrained by synthetic accessibility and adherence to established design rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five [9] [8]. The following table summarizes the key quantitative distinctions in scale and properties between representative NP and SC collections.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Natural Product and Synthetic Compound Libraries

Property	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Implication for Chemical Space
Estimated Total Scale	~1.1 million known compounds [8]	Hundreds of millions [8]	SC libraries offer broader sampling of accessible chemical space.
Average Molecular Weight	Higher and increasing over time [8]	Lower, constrained by design rules [9] [8]	NPs explore regions beyond typical "drug-like" space.
Structural Complexity (Fsp3)	Higher (greater fraction of sp3 carbons) [9]	Lower (more flat, aromatic structures) [9]	NPs possess more 3D-shaped scaffolds, advantageous for binding complex targets.
Stereochemical Content	Greater number of stereocenters [9]	Fewer stereocenters [9]	NPs offer more chiral complexity, impacting specificity and synthesis.
Ring Systems	More rings, larger fused systems, fewer aromatic rings [8]	More aromatic rings, smaller ring assemblies [8]	NP scaffolds are more likely to be saturated and bridged.
Chemical Diversity	Occupies a broader, more diverse region of chemical space [9]	Occupies a more concentrated, densely populated region [8]	NPs are a key source of truly novel chemotypes.

Defining and Quantifying Accessibility

Accessibility in this context is a dual concept encompassing both synthetic feasibility and practical availability for screening and development. For SCs, the primary barrier is synthetic tractability. For NPs, accessibility is hampered by low natural abundance, complex purification, and difficult synthetic derivatization.

The Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Score for SCs

The Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Score is a computational metric that ranks molecules from 1 (easy to make) to 10 (very difficult) [22]. It combines two components:

• Fragment Score: Derived from the statistical analysis of millions of known, synthesized structures in databases like PubChem, capturing "historical synthetic knowledge."
• Complexity Penalty: Accounts for non-standard features like large rings, stereochemical complexity, and unusual ring fusions [22]. The SA Score correlates well (r² = 0.89) with manual estimations by experienced medicinal chemists and is crucial for prioritizing virtual screening hits or de novo designs for synthesis [22]. It quantifies why many SC libraries cluster in regions of chemical space that are flat and aromatic—these structures are simply easier and cheaper to synthesize at scale.

Accessibility Metrics for NPs

For NPs, accessibility is less standardized but can be gauged through:

• Commercial Availability: Only a tiny fraction of known NPs are available for purchase from screening libraries.
• Biosynthetic Tractability: The feasibility of engineering microbial hosts for production.
• Semisynthetic Modification Potential: The ease with which a natural scaffold can be derivatized, often hampered by multiple reactive functional groups and stereocenters. Recent studies indicate that only about 17% of the core scaffolds found in simple NPs are represented in commercially available screening collections, highlighting a major accessibility gap [9].

Table 2: Accessibility Metrics and Barriers for NP and SC Libraries

Accessibility Dimension	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)
Primary Barrier	Supply & derivatization	Synthetic tractability
Key Quantitative Metric	Scaffold representation in commercial libraries (<20%) [9]; Yield from natural source.	Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Score (1-10) [22].
Typical Cost Driver	Isolation, purification, and structure elucidation.	Number of synthetic steps, cost of reagents, and need for specialized catalysis.
Route to Improve Access	Total synthesis (often lengthy), heterologous biosynthesis, and focused biomimetic libraries.	Methodology development, use of available building blocks, and library design prioritizing SA Score.

Methodologies for Bridging the Accessibility Gap

Innovative experimental protocols are being developed to harness the privileged biology of NPs while overcoming their inherent accessibility challenges. These methodologies systematically explore the biologically relevant chemical space around NP scaffolds.

Experimental Protocol: Targeted Sampling of Natural Product Space (TSNaP)

The TSNaP strategy computationally defines and then synthetically samples the chemical space surrounding a family of bioactive NPs [23].

1. Reference Set Definition & Fragmentation:

• Select a family of structurally related, bioactive NPs (e.g., tetrahydrofuran-containing polyketide macrolides).
• Deconstruct them into logical synthetic building blocks (e.g., tetrahydrofuranol fragments, polyketide-like enoic acid chains, and side-chain units) [23].

2. In Silico Library Assembly & Prioritization:

• Systematically recombine building blocks to generate a large virtual library (e.g., 3456 compounds).
• For each virtual compound, generate an ensemble of low-energy conformers.
• Calculate a 3D structural similarity score (Cs) against the reference NPs using volumetric and functional group overlap (e.g., via FastROCS software) [23].
• Prioritize compounds with intermediate similarity scores, ensuring they are related to but distinct from known NPs, to sample unexplored but relevant regions.

3. Targeted Synthesis & Evaluation:

• Develop a modular, stereoselective synthetic route to access the prioritized structures.
• Construct a focused library (typically <100 compounds) for biological screening.
• Validation studies using TSNaP have reported high hit rates (>10%), exceeding those of conventional combinatorial libraries [23].

(Diagram 1: TSNaP Protocol for Targeted NP Space Exploration)

Experimental Protocol: Generative AI for NP-Like Compound Design (NPGPT)

This protocol uses fine-tuned Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) to design accessible, NP-like compounds [24].

1. Data Preparation and Model Fine-Tuning:

• Curate a high-quality dataset of NP structures (e.g., from the COCONUT database).
• Preprocess SMILES strings: standardize, filter by size (e.g., atom count ≤150), and augment via randomization [24].
• Fine-tune a pretrained chemical GPT model (e.g., ChemGPT) on the NP dataset to bias its generation toward NP-like chemical space.

2. Compound Generation and Validation:

• Generate a large set of novel molecular structures from the fine-tuned model.
• Filter and validate generated compounds using standard metrics:
  • Validity: Percentage of syntactically correct, parsable structures.
  • Uniqueness: Percentage of non-duplicate structures.
  • Novelty: Percentage not found in the original training database.
  • Fréchet ChemNet Distance (FCD): Measures distribution similarity to the training NP set; a lower FCD indicates closer alignment [24].

3. Property Analysis and Selection:

• Calculate key descriptors (Molecular Weight, LogP, etc.) and scores for generated molecules.
• Calculate the Natural Product-Likeness (NP Score) and Synthetic Accessibility (SA Score).
• Select compounds that optimally balance high NP-likeness with a tractable SA Score (<5-6) for further investigation [22] [24].

Successfully navigating NP and SC chemical space requires a specialized toolkit of databases, software, and physical reagents.

Table 3: Essential Research Toolkit for NP and SC Exploration

Tool / Reagent	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to NP/SC Research
COCONUT Database [24]	Database	Comprehensive collection of ~400,000 NP structures.	Primary source for NP chemical space analysis, training generative models, and scaffold mining.
PubChem [22]	Database	Repository of millions of experimentally tested chemical substances.	Source of "historical synthetic knowledge" for calculating SA Scores and benchmarking SC libraries.
RDKit	Software	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit.	Used for calculating molecular descriptors, generating fingerprints, processing SMILES strings, and validating AI-generated structures [24].
SA Score Algorithm [22]	Software	Computes Synthetic Accessibility score (1-10).	Critical for prioritizing synthetic targets from virtual screens or generative AI output, ensuring tractability.
Polyketide-like Building Blocks (e.g., Tetrahydrofuranols, enoic acids) [23]	Chemical Reagent	Physically available fragments for synthesis.	Enable the practical execution of strategies like TSNaP for populating NP-inspired chemical space.
FastROCS (OpenEye) [23]	Software	Performs rapid 3D molecular shape and overlay comparisons.	Calculates 3D similarity scores for virtual compound prioritization in structure-based NP space sampling.

Integrated Analysis: Property-Accessibility Relationships

The interplay between a compound's inherent physicochemical properties and its accessibility defines its place in practical discovery workflows. Synthetically accessible SCs are heavily clustered in regions defined by lower molecular weight, fewer stereocenters, and higher aromatic ring count. In contrast, NPs, despite their higher complexity and lower initial accessibility, serve as beacons marking biologically relevant regions. Advanced strategies like BIOS, CtD, TSNaP, and NPGPT are designed to create corridors into these regions from more synthetically accessible starting points [25] [23].

(Diagram 2: Strategic Navigation from NP/SC Spaces to an Ideal Library)

Quantifying the scale and accessibility of NP and SC collections reveals a fundamental dichotomy in drug discovery: breadth versus depth. SC libraries offer immense breadth in easily accessible chemical space, while NP collections provide profound depth in biologically validated, complex space. The future of productive exploration lies not in choosing one over the other, but in integrating them. Computational methods like the SA Score and 3D similarity mapping, combined with experimental strategies like TSNaP and AI-driven design, are building a quantitative bridge between these worlds. This enables the systematic generation of "pseudo-natural product" libraries that retain desirable NP-like properties while being tailored for synthetic feasibility [23]. As these methodologies mature, the distinction between natural and synthetic chemical space will blur, giving rise to hybrid libraries that are maximally efficient in probing the biological universe.

Bridging Biology and Chemistry: Methods to Harness and Hybridize Chemical Space

Cheminformatic Tools for Mapping and Comparing Chemical Spaces

The systematic exploration of chemical space—the vast, multidimensional universe of all possible molecules—is a foundational objective in modern drug discovery [3]. This pursuit is fundamentally framed by the comparative analysis of two major domains: the natural product (NP) chemical space, shaped by billions of years of evolution, and the synthetic compound chemical space, engineered through human ingenuity [26] [4]. Natural products have historically been an unparalleled source of bioactive compounds; approximately half of all approved small-molecule drugs originate directly or indirectly from NPs [4]. Their structures are distinguished by greater three-dimensional complexity, a higher fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons, more stereocenters, and unique ring systems compared to typical synthetic, drug-like molecules [27] [28].

However, this structural richness also presents significant challenges for discovery and synthesis, creating a distinct chemoinformatic problem [29]. Synthetic compounds, often designed for oral bioavailability, tend to occupy a more centralized and well-explored region of chemical space governed by rules like Lipinski's "Rule of Five" [28]. The core thesis of contemporary research is that these two spaces are complementary yet distinct. Bridging them through computational tools enables scaffold hopping, the identification of novel bioactive entities, and the design of synthetically tractable mimics of complex natural architectures [29]. Cheminformatics provides the essential methodologies—from molecular representation and similarity searching to visualization and property prediction—to map, navigate, and compare these expansive territories, thereby accelerating the identification of new therapeutic leads [26] [3].

Foundational Concepts and Definitions

• Chemical Space (CS) & Biologically Relevant Chemical Space (BioReCS): Chemical space is a multidimensional concept where each dimension represents a molecular property or descriptor, and each molecule occupies a specific coordinate [3]. The subset of this universe containing molecules with biological activity—beneficial or detrimental—is termed the Biologically Relevant Chemical Space (BioReCS) [3]. This includes not only drugs and natural products but also agrochemicals, flavor molecules, and toxic compounds [3].
• Chemical Subspaces (ChemSpas): These are coherent regions of chemical space defined by shared structural or functional features. Examples include the space of all FDA-approved drugs, all peptides, all natural products from marine organisms, or all kinase inhibitors [3].
• Molecular Descriptors & Fingerprints: These are mathematical representations that encode chemical structure into a numerical format for computational analysis. Descriptors are typically continuous values (e.g., molecular weight, logP). Molecular fingerprints are a special type of descriptor, usually binary or integer vectors, where each bit indicates the presence or count of a specific structural pattern or property [27]. They are the primary tool for rapid similarity searching and clustering.
• Molecular Similarity: The cornerstone of ligand-based cheminformatics, it operates on the "similar property principle"—the hypothesis that structurally similar molecules are likely to have similar properties [28]. Similarity is quantified using metrics like the Tanimoto coefficient applied to fingerprint representations [27] [28].

Quantitative Landscape: Natural Products vs. Synthetic Compounds

The distinct evolutionary origins of natural products and synthetic compounds manifest in quantifiable differences in their physicochemical and structural properties, defining their respective regions in chemical space.

Table 1: Comparative Physicochemical and Structural Profile

Property / Descriptor	Typical Natural Products	Typical Synthetic/Drug-like Compounds	Implications for Drug Discovery
Molecular Weight	Broader distribution, often higher [27] [28]	More constrained, lower average [28]	NPs may target protein-protein interfaces; synthetic compounds favored for oral bioavailability.
Fraction of sp³ Carbons (Fsp³)	Higher [27] [29]	Lower	Higher Fsp³ in NPs correlates with better 3D shape complexity, potential for selectivity, and lower attrition rates [29].
Number of Stereocenters	Greater [27] [28]	Fewer	Increases synthetic complexity but also provides specific biological recognition.
Ring Systems	More diverse and complex scaffolds; many unique to NPs [28] [4]	Simpler, more aromatic rings [28]	NP scaffolds offer novel starting points for design but are under-represented in screening libraries [28].
Hydrogen Bond Donors/Acceptors	More abundant [28]	Fewer	Affects solubility, permeability, and direct target interactions.
Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA)	Generally higher [26]	Lower	Influences membrane permeability and oral bioavailability.
Lipinski's Rule of 5 Violations	Common [28]	Rare (by design)	Many NP-derived drugs are administered non-orally (e.g., intravenous) [28].
Predicted Bioactivity	High potency and selectivity [27]	Variable	NPs are pre-validated by evolution but may have optimized toxicity for ecological roles [26].

Core Methodologies: Representing and Comparing Molecules

Molecular Fingerprints: Performance and Selection

Molecular fingerprints are critical for efficient chemical space analysis. A comprehensive 2024 benchmark study evaluated 20 fingerprint types on over 100,000 unique natural products, revealing that performance is task-dependent and NPs require careful fingerprint selection [27].

Table 2: Performance of Fingerprint Types on Natural Product Tasks [27]

Fingerprint Category	Key Examples	Description	Performance Note for NPs
Circular Fingerprints	ECFP, FCFP, Morgan	Encodes circular neighborhoods around each atom; radius defines fragment size. The de facto standard for drug-like molecules.	Robust performance. However, other types can match or outperform for specific NP bioactivity prediction tasks [27].
Path-Based Fingerprints	Daylight, RDKit, Atom-Pair	Encodes all linear paths up to a specified length in the molecular graph.	Performance can vary significantly with structural complexity.
Pharmacophore Fingerprints	Pharmacophore Pairs/Triplets	Encodes spatial relationships between functional features (e.g., H-bond donor, acceptor).	Less dependent on specific scaffold, can facilitate scaffold hopping from NPs [29].
Substructure Key Fingerprints	MACCS, PubChem	Each bit represents the presence of a pre-defined, expert-curated substructure.	May miss novel NP scaffolds not covered by the key list.
String-Based Fingerprints	LINGO, MHFP, MAP4	Operates on SMILES strings or uses string representations of fragments. MAP4 is noted for broad applicability.	MAP4 fingerprint shows promise as a universal descriptor for diverse chemotypes, including NPs [3] [27].

Experimental Protocol for Fingerprint Benchmarking (as in [27]):

• Dataset Curation: Obtain a large, diverse set of NPs (e.g., from COCONUT or CMNPD databases). Apply standardization: neutralize charges, remove salts, and standardize tautomers. Filter out invalid structures.
• Fingerprint Calculation: Compute multiple fingerprint types (e.g., ECFP4, FCFP4, MACCS, Atom-Pair, MAP4) for all compounds using a toolkit like RDKit.
• Unsupervised Similarity Analysis: Calculate all pairwise Tanimoto similarities for a fingerprint. Use the similarity matrices to assess the intrinsic clustering or diversity of the NP set.
• Supervised QSAR Modeling: For NPs with bioactivity annotations, build binary classification models (e.g., using Random Forest). Use different fingerprints as features. Employ rigorous cross-validation and evaluate using metrics like ROC-AUC.
• Analysis: Determine which fingerprints provide the best separation for similarity searching or the most predictive models for bioactivity. The key finding is that no single fingerprint is universally best for NPs, and evaluation of multiple types is recommended [27].

Advanced Descriptors for Scaffold Hopping

To directly bridge the NP and synthetic spaces, advanced descriptors that capture holistic molecular similarity are required. The WHALES (Weighted Holistic Atom Localization and Entity Shape) descriptor is a notable example [29].

Experimental Protocol for WHALES Descriptor Calculation and Scaffold Hopping (as in [29]):

• 3D Conformer Generation & Optimization: For both the NP query molecule and database compounds, generate representative low-energy 3D conformations. Perform geometry optimization using a force field (e.g., MMFF94).
• Partial Charge Assignment: Calculate atomic partial charges (e.g., using the Gasteiger-Marsili method) for the optimized conformer.
• Atom-Centered Covariance Matrix: For each non-hydrogen atom j in a molecule, compute a weighted covariance matrix Sw(j) of the coordinates of all other atoms *i*. The weighting factor is the absolute value of the partial charge |δi|. This matrix defines an ellipsoid representing the local 3D environment and charge distribution.
• Calculate Atom-Centered Mahalanobis (ACM) Distances: For each atom j, compute the ACM distance to every other atom i using the inverse of S_w(j). This creates a normalized, asymmetric distance matrix that accounts for local shape and charge density.
• Compute Atomic Indices: From the ACM matrix, derive three indices per atom: Remoteness (global average distance), Isolation Degree (distance to nearest neighbor), and their Ratio (IR).
• Generate Fixed-Length WHALES Vector: Bin the values of the three atomic indices across all atoms (e.g., using deciles, min, and max) to create a fixed-length descriptor vector (e.g., 33 dimensions) suitable for comparing molecules of different sizes.
• Similarity Searching: Use the WHALES descriptor of an NP query to search a database of synthetic compounds via a distance metric (e.g., Euclidean distance). Top hits are synthetically accessible molecules that share similar 3D pharmacophore and shape properties, enabling scaffold hops [29].

Diagram 1: Workflow for scaffold hopping from NPs using WHALES descriptors.

Retrobiosynthetic & Synthetic Route Comparison

For NPs, especially modular ones like polyketides and nonribosomal peptides, retrobiosynthetic analysis offers a unique, structure-informed similarity metric. Tools like GRAPE/GARLIC decompose an NP into its biosynthetic building blocks (e.g., amino acids, acetate units) for comparison [28]. Conversely, for synthetic compounds, route similarity is a growing field. A 2025 method calculates similarity between two synthetic routes to the same target based on bond-forming events and atom grouping in intermediates, providing a score that aligns with medicinal chemists' intuition [30].

Visualization: Navigating High-Dimensional Chemical Space

Visualization is indispensable for interpreting high-dimensional chemical space data. The process involves reducing dimensions to 2D or 3D for human comprehension [7].

Diagram 2: Generic workflow for chemical space visualization.

Key Techniques:

• Dimensionality Reduction (DR): Algorithms like PCA, t-SNE, and UMAP transform high-dimensional descriptor data into plottable coordinates [7]. UMAP is particularly noted for preserving both local and global structure at scale.
• Interactive Navigation: Modern tools allow scientists to interactively explore maps, select compound clusters, and view properties in linked panels, enabling a "human-in-the-loop" discovery process [7].
• Application: Visualization is used to compare the coverage of different compound libraries (e.g., NPs vs. commercial synthetic), identify gaps in corporate collections, and validate the chemical space coverage of generative AI models [3] [7].

The Research Toolkit: Essential Software and Databases

Table 3: Essential Cheminformatics Software Platforms

Platform / Tool	Type	Key Capabilities	Applicability to NP vs. Synthetic Mapping
RDKit	Open-Source Library (C++/Python)	Core cheminformatics: I/O, fingerprint/descriptor calculation, substructure/search, basic 3D ops, integration with ML libraries.	The de facto standard for prototyping. Excellent for computing and comparing descriptors for both NP and synthetic sets [27] [31].
ChemAxon Suite	Commercial Platform	Comprehensive enterprise-level tools: JChem for database management, Marvin for property prediction, Reactor for synthesis planning.	Robust for managing large, mixed libraries and calculating standardized properties for comparative analysis [31].
Schrödinger Suite	Commercial Platform	Integrated drug discovery platform with advanced molecular modeling, induced fit docking, and free energy calculations.	Best for deep, structure-based studies comparing NP and synthetic ligand binding modes to a target.
KNIME / Pipeline Pilot	Visual Workflow Builders	Data pipelining and analytics with extensive chemistry extensions (e.g., RDKit nodes).	Ideal for building reproducible, complex workflows that integrate data retrieval, descriptor calculation, modeling, and visualization for chemical space analysis [31].
AiZynthFinder	Open-Source Tool (Retrosynthesis)	AI-powered retrosynthetic route prediction using a template-based approach.	Useful for assessing the synthetic accessibility of NP-inspired compounds or comparing predicted routes [30].

Table 4: Key Public Compound Databases

Database	Primary Focus	Approx. Size	Utility for Comparative Studies
COCONUT	General Natural Products	>400,000 NPs [27] [4]	Largest open NP collection; essential for profiling the NP chemical subspace [27].
ChEMBL	Bioactive Drug-like Molecules	>2M compounds	Canonical source for bioactive synthetic/semi-synthetic molecules; defines the "druggable" synthetic space [3].
PubChem	General Chemicals & Bioassays	>100M substances	Massive repository including both NPs and synthetics; useful for broad similarity searches [3].
CMNPD	Marine Natural Products	>30,000 compounds [27]	Specialized source for structurally unique, high-potency NPs from marine environments [27] [4].
ZINC/FDB-17	Purchasable Screening Compounds	100M+ molecules (FDB-17)	Represents the "synthetically accessible on-demand" chemical space for virtual screening [3].

Cheminformatic tools have matured to provide a robust framework for the systematic mapping and comparison of the natural product and synthetic chemical spaces. The evidence shows that these spaces are non-redundant. NPs offer broader structural diversity, higher complexity, and novel scaffolds, while synthetic libraries offer greater coverage of "rule-of-five" compliant, readily accessible chemical matter [28] [4]. The future lies in integrative strategies:

• AI-Enhanced Navigation: Deep generative models and chemical language models will enable the targeted exploration of the underexplored interface between NP and synthetic spaces, proposing novel hybrid structures that retain NP-like bioactivity with synthetic tractability [3] [7].
• Universal Molecular Representations: Developing descriptors like MAP4 that perform consistently across all chemotypes—small molecules, peptides, macrocycles, and even inorganic complexes—will allow for truly unified chemical space maps [3] [27].
• Integration of Multi-Omics Data: The next frontier is linking chemical space maps directly to biosynthetic gene cluster (genomic space) and taxonomic (biological source) data, enabling a phylogenetically-informed discovery of NPs [4].
• Focus on "Dark" Chemical Matter: Comparative analysis should extend to include inactive compounds (e.g., from "dark chemical matter" datasets) to better define the boundaries of BioReCS and improve the efficiency of virtual screening [3].

By leveraging these tools and perspectives, researchers can more effectively harness the complementary strengths of nature's ingenuity and synthetic design, accelerating the discovery of next-generation therapeutics.

The chemical space occupied by natural products (NPs) represents a unique and biologically pre-validated region of molecular diversity, distinct from that explored by conventional synthetic compounds (SCs). This distinction forms the foundational thesis for leveraging NPs in fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) [32]. NPs are the result of evolutionary selection for interactions with biological macromolecules, granting them inherent bioactivity and complexity [33]. Historically, NPs, their derivatives, and inspired analogues constitute approximately one-third of all approved small-molecule drugs since 1981 [32]. However, their structural complexity often poses challenges for synthesis and optimization [34].

Conversely, synthetic libraries, while vast in number, have historically exhibited more constrained structural diversity, a factor implicated in the high attrition rates of traditional high-throughput screening (HTS) campaigns [8]. A time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis reveals that while NPs have grown larger and more complex over decades, the evolution of SCs has been bounded by synthetic accessibility and drug-like rules [8]. This divergence defines complementary chemical spaces: NPs offer high scaffold complexity and three-dimensionality, while synthetic libraries provide a breadth of easily accessible functional group variations [8] [35].

Fragment-based drug design (FBDD) emerges as a powerful strategy to bridge these spaces. By deconstructing NPs into smaller, synthetically tractable fragments, researchers can capture essential pharmacophoric elements while enabling efficient exploration of novel chemical terrain through recombination [34]. This approach leverages the "best of both worlds": the biological relevance of NPs and the synthetic utility of fragment building blocks. The design of pseudo-natural products (PNPs)—novel scaffolds created by combining unrelated NP fragments—exemplifies this strategy, generating chemotypes not found in nature that occupy unexplored yet biologically relevant chemical space [33] [36]. This whitepaper provides a technical guide to generating, analyzing, and utilizing NP fragment libraries, framing the discussion within the broader context of chemical space exploration for next-generation drug discovery.

The Current Landscape of NP Fragment Libraries

Recent efforts have systematically curated large-scale fragment libraries from major NP databases, enabling direct comparison with synthetic fragment collections. The quantitative scale and properties of these libraries are foundational for informed experimental design [34].

Table 1: Scale and Source of Major Natural Product and Synthetic Fragment Libraries [34]

Library Name	Type	Source/Origin	Initial Number of Fragments	Fragments After Standardization
COCONUT NP Fragments	Natural Product	648,721 NPs from COCONUT 2.0	2,583,127	2,583,127
LANaPDB NP Fragments	Natural Product	13,578 NPs from LANaPDB	74,193	74,193
CRAFT	Synthetic (NP-inspired)	Novel heterocyclic & NP-derived scaffolds	1,214	1,202
Enamine (Water-Soluble)	Commercial Synthetic	Commercial Vendor	12,505	12,496
ChemDiv	Commercial Synthetic	Commercial Vendor	74,721	72,356
Maybridge	Commercial Synthetic	Commercial Vendor	30,099	29,852
Life Chemicals	Commercial Synthetic	Commercial Vendor	65,552	65,248

A critical filter in FBDD is the "Rule of Three" (RO3), which identifies fragments with optimal physicochemical properties for initial screening (MW ≤ 300 Da, rotatable bonds ≤ 3, etc.) [34]. Compliance with the RO3 varies significantly between library types. Commercial synthetic libraries show the highest percentage of RO3-compliant fragments (e.g., 67.1% for Enamine), as they are explicitly designed for FBDD. In contrast, a much smaller percentage of fragments generated from NP databases comply (1.5% for COCONUT, 2.5% for LANaPDB), reflecting the inherent complexity and higher molecular weight of parent NPs. The CRAFT library, designed with synthetic accessibility in mind, shows an intermediate compliance rate of 14.6% [34]. This highlights a key trade-off: NP fragment libraries require more stringent filtering but offer access to unique, complex chemotypes.

Table 2: Key Property Comparison of Fragment Libraries [34]

Property (Mean)	COCONUT NP Fragments	LANaPDB NP Fragments	CRAFT Library	Enamine Library
Molecular Weight (Da)	Data from source	Data from source	Lower than NP	Lowest
Fraction of sp3 Carbons (Fsp3)	Higher	Higher	Moderate	Lower
Number of Stereocenters	Higher	Higher	Variable	Low
Synthetic Accessibility (SA) Score	More Challenging	More Challenging	Designed for Accessibility	High Accessibility
Structural Diversity/Uniqueness	High	High	Novel scaffolds	Broad coverage

The global research landscape in FBDD is active and evolving. A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2015-2024 shows fluctuating growth, led by the United States and China, with core research directions focused on "fragment-based drug discovery," "molecular docking," and "drug discovery" [37]. This indicates a strong and sustained interest in advancing the computational and experimental methodologies that underpin the effective use of fragment libraries.

Methodologies for Library Generation and Analysis

Data Curation and Standardization Protocol

A consistent preprocessing pipeline is essential for robust cheminformatic analysis. The following protocol, derived from recent studies, details the critical steps [34]:

• Input Representation: Libraries are stored as Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) strings.
• Element Filtering: Retain fragments containing only the following elements: H, B, C, N, O, F, Si, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I.
• Component Handling: Fragments with multiple disconnected components (salts, mixtures) are split, and the largest component is retained.
• Standardization: Using toolkits like RDKit and MolVS, fragments undergo:
  • Reionization and neutralization to a canonical protonation state at pH 7.4.
  • Generation of a canonical tautomer.
• Deduplication: Remove duplicate (identical) structures to retain only unique fragments.

Fragmentation Algorithms

The choice of algorithm dictates the size and character of the resulting fragment library.

• RECAP (Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure): The most common method, which cleaves molecules at eleven specific, synthetically accessible bond types (e.g., amide, ester, amine, ether) [34] [38]. It can be applied exhaustively to generate minimal fragments or in a "non-extensive" manner to preserve larger, intermediate scaffolds [38].
• Non-Extensive Fragmentation: This method generates all possible intermediate structures between the parent NP and the minimal RECAP fragments. It yields a larger set of fragments (e.g., 45,355 vs. 11,525 from one study) that retain more of the original NP's complexity and often show higher pharmacophore fit scores in virtual screening [38].
• MORTAR Framework: An integrated tool that includes algorithms for scaffold generation, functional group finding, and sugar removal, offering an alternative fragmentation logic [34].

Cheminformatic Analysis and Diversity Assessment

Post-generation, libraries are characterized using standardized descriptors:

• Physicochemical Descriptors: Molecular weight, calculated logP (cLogP), topological polar surface area (TPSA), number of hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, rotatable bonds, fraction of sp3 carbons (Fsp3), and ring counts [34] [8].
• Complexity & Synthetic Accessibility: The Synthetic Accessibility (SA) score is calculated, which penalizes complex ring systems, stereocenters, and uncommon structural features [34].
• Diversity Metrics: Structural diversity is quantified using fingerprint-based methods (e.g., Morgan fingerprints, MACCS keys) and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient. Low intra-library similarity indicates high diversity [34] [36].
• Chemical Space Visualization: Techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) are used to project high-dimensional descriptor data into 2D or 3D maps, visually comparing the coverage of NP versus synthetic libraries [35].

Diagram 1: NP Fragment Library Generation & Analysis Workflow

From Fragments to Novel Scaffolds: Design Strategies

The ultimate goal of fragment analysis is to inform the design of novel, bioactive compounds. Several strategic frameworks exist along a continuum of similarity to original NPs [32].

Table 3: Strategies for Designing Natural Product-Inspired Compounds [32]

Strategy	Core Principle	Relation to Parent NP	Key Advantage
Pseudo-Natural Product (PNP) Synthesis	Recombining fragments from biosynthetically unrelated NPs.	Novel scaffold not found in nature; contains NP fragments.	Explores unprecedented chemical & biological space.
Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS)	Using the core scaffold of a bioactive NP as a starting point for diversification.	Analogues based on a known NP scaffold.	Leverages proven bioactivity of the scaffold class.
Fragment Merging/Growing	(FBDD core strategy) Optimizing a fragment hit by elaborating its structure.	May diverge significantly from any NP.	Driven by structural data on target binding.
Complexity-to-Diversity (CtD)	Applying ring-distortion reactions to complex NPs to rapidly generate novel scaffolds.	Derivatives with significant structural change from parent NP.	Rapid access to high complexity and diversity.

Pseudo-Natural Product (PNP) Design is a particularly powerful fragment-based strategy. A seminal study combined four fragment-sized NPs (quinine, quinidine, sinomenine, griseofulvin) with indole or chromanone fragments via robust reactions like the Fischer indole synthesis and Kabbe condensation [36]. This generated a 244-member library of eight distinct PNP classes. Cheminformatic analysis confirmed these PNPs occupied a unique region of chemical space, sharing properties with both drugs and NPs but representing novel fragment combinations not found in nature [36].

De Novo Design with Multicomponent Reactions offers another efficient route. One protocol used isocyanide-based multicomponent reactions (IMCRs) to connect NP-derived building blocks via amide bonds, creating a virtual library of PNPs. Machine learning filters were applied to select for NP-like character and synthetic accessibility prior to synthesis and phenotypic screening [33].

Diagram 2: Pseudo-Natural Product Design & Evaluation Workflow

Experimental Protocols for Screening & Evaluation

Phenotypic Screening Using Cell Painting

An unbiased phenotypic assay is ideal for evaluating PNPs with unknown mechanisms of action.

• Assay: Cell Painting assay (CPA). Cells are treated with compounds, stained with multiplexed fluorescent dyes (for cytoskeleton, nucleoli, etc.), and imaged with high-content microscopy [36].
• Analysis: Images are processed to extract hundreds of morphological features, creating a "phenotypic fingerprint" for each compound.
• Outcome: Fingerprints are compared via principal component analysis (PCA). Successful PNPs will cluster separately from their parent fragments and from DMSO controls, indicating a novel bioactivity profile [36]. This can guide target identification and validation.

Pharmacophore-Based Virtual Screening of Fragments

This protocol uses fragment libraries for computationally guided discovery [38].

• Fragment Generation: Deconstruct an NP database (e.g., TCM, AfroDb) using both extensive and non-extensive RECAP rules.
• Pharmacophore Model Building: For a target of interest, create two overlapping 3D pharmacophore models using known active ligands. Models consist of features like H-bond donors/acceptors and hydrophobic points.
• Virtual Screening: Screen the NP-derived fragment (NPDF) libraries against both models.
• Hit Analysis: Identify fragments matching one or both models. Non-extensive fragments often show higher fit scores. Fragments matching different regions of the binding site can be merged to design a novel, more potent lead compound [38].

Synthetic Protocol for a PNP Library via IMCRs

A representative protocol for creating PNPs via isocyanide-based multicomponent reactions [33]:

• Design: Select NP-derived carboxylic acids, aldehydes, and isocyanides as building blocks.
• Reaction: For each PNP, combine the three components (1.0 equiv. each) in dry dichloromethane (DCM). Add molecular sieves (4 Å) and cool to 0°C.
• Synthesis: Stir the reaction mixture under a nitrogen atmosphere, allowing it to warm to room temperature over 12-24 hours. Monitor by TLC or LC-MS.
• Work-up: Quench the reaction, concentrate in vacuo, and purify the crude product via flash chromatography on silica gel.
• Characterization: Confirm structure and purity of all PNPs using ( ^1H ) NMR, ( ^{13}C ) NMR, and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS).

Table 4: The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents & Materials

Item	Function/Description	Example Use Case
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit for Python/C++.	Data standardization, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation [34].
COCONUT / LANaPDB	Large, open-access databases of natural product structures.	Primary source for NP structures to generate fragment libraries [34].
Molecular Sieves (4 Å)	Zeolite desiccant.	Essential for removing trace water in Isocyanide-based Multicomponent Reactions (IMCRs) to prevent side reactions [33].
Isocyanides	Versatile building block with a divalent carbon atom.	Core reactant in IMCRs for the one-pot synthesis of complex, NP-inspired amide backbones [33].
Fluorescent Dyes for Cell Painting	Multiplexed dyes (e.g., for actin, mitochondria, DNA).	Staining agents in the Cell Painting assay to generate morphological profiles of compound treatments [36].
LigandScout / PharmaGist	Software for pharmacophore model development and virtual screening.	Creating 3D pharmacophore queries from protein-ligand complexes or active ligands to screen fragment libraries [38].

The strategic exploration of biologically relevant chemical space is a fundamental challenge in chemical biology and drug discovery [39]. Natural products (NPs), refined by evolution, represent chemically pre-validated probes and therapeutics that occupy a region of chemical space with high biological relevance [39]. Historically, approximately half of all approved small-molecule drugs originate from natural products [9]. Cheminformatic analyses confirm that NPs and NP-derived drugs exhibit greater structural diversity, occupy a larger region of chemical space, and possess more three-dimensional complexity (higher fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons, Fsp³) and stereogenic content compared to purely synthetic drugs [9].

However, NPs are limited by evolutionary constraints, exploring only a fraction of theoretically possible NP-like chemical space [39]. In contrast, synthetic compounds (SCs), while vast in number, have historically been designed within a narrower, more accessible chemical space guided by synthetic feasibility and "drug-like" rules, leading to lower structural complexity and reduced biological relevance [8]. This disparity creates an opportunity: to develop design principles that merge the biological relevance of NPs with the unrestricted structural creativity of synthetic chemistry. The Pseudo-Natural Product (PNP) strategy directly addresses this by performing the de novo combination of NP fragments into novel scaffolds not found in nature, thereby expanding into biologically relevant but evolutionarily unexplored regions of chemical space [39] [40].

Conceptual Foundation of the PNP Strategy

The PNP design principle is defined by the combination of two or more distinct NP fragments (or fragment-sized NPs) through connections or fusions that are not known in existing biosynthetic pathways [39] [40]. The resulting scaffolds are not natural products but are designed to retain the privileged biological relevance and structural complexity characteristic of NPs [40]. This strategy deliberately escapes the structural boundaries imposed by natural evolution, enabling access to novel chemotypes with the potential for unprecedented biological activities and modes of action [39] [41].

PNPs can be differentiated from related concepts:

• Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS): Focuses on simplifying or modifying a single known NP scaffold to retain its bioactivity while improving synthetic tractability [39].
• Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS): Aims to generate high scaffold diversity using synthetic logic, but is not explicitly guided by NP-derived structural motifs, potentially lacking ensured biological relevance [39].
• PNP Strategy: Integrates the biological relevance of NP fragments with the scaffold diversity potential of DOS, creating hybrids with novel fragment combinations [39].

The "pseudo-natural" character is algorithmically identifiable. Tools like the Natural Product Fragment Combination (NPFC) tool analyze structures to identify NP fragments and classify compounds as NP, NP-like (NPL), PNP, or non-PNP based on their fragment combination graphs [40]. Analyses using this tool reveal that PNPs constitute a significant fraction (32%) of bioactive compounds in databases like ChEMBL and are strongly enriched in clinical compounds, validating the strategy's practical impact [40].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product-Derived vs. Completely Synthetic Drugs (Approved 1981-2010) [9]

Physicochemical Parameter	Natural Product-Derived Drugs (NP, ND, S*)	Completely Synthetic Drugs (S)	Implication for PNP Design
Chemical Space Coverage	Larger, more diverse regions	More confined, clustered regions	PNPs aim to extend NP-like space.
Molecular Complexity (Fsp³)	Higher (more sp³ carbons)	Lower (more flat, aromatic)	PNP synthesis prioritizes 3D frameworks.
Stereogenic Centers	More stereocenters	Fewer stereocenters	PNP reactions often introduce chirality.
Hydrophobicity	Generally lower	Generally higher	PNPs may offer improved solubility.
Aromatic Ring Count	Fewer aromatic rings	More aromatic rings	PNPs often fuse/aliphatic NP ring systems.

Core Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

The Divergent Intermediate Strategy for Diverse PNPs (dPNPs)

A recent advancement in PNP synthesis is the divergent intermediate strategy, which merges PNP logic with principles from Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS) [39]. This approach uses a common synthetic intermediate that can be funneled through different reaction pathways to generate multiple distinct PNP classes, dramatically increasing scaffold diversity from a single starting point.

The seminal work by [39] established a platform using indole-based starting materials. The core strategy involves:

• Build: Synthesis of a planar indole precursor tethered to an aryl bromide electrophile.
• Couple/Pair: A pivotal palladium-catalyzed dearomative carbonylation cascade forms a spirocyclic core (Class A: spiroindolylindanones).
• Diverge: The common Class A intermediate is subjected to various transformations to generate diverse classes.

Diagram 1: Divergent Synthesis Workflow from Common PNP Intermediate [39] (78 characters)

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Key Dearomatization Reaction

The construction of the foundational Class A spiroindolylindanones relies on an innovative dearomative carbonylation cascade [39].

Procedure:

• Reaction Setup: In a glovebox, add the indole substrate 1a (0.20 mmol, 1.0 equiv), Pd(OAc)₂ (4.5 µmol, 2.25 mol%), Xantphos (9.0 µmol, 4.5 mol%), and Na₂CO₃ (0.30 mmol, 1.5 equiv) to a dried Schlenk tube.
• Atmosphere & Solvent: Seal the tube, remove it from the glovebox, and evacuate/backfill with argon (3 cycles). Under argon, add dry DMF (2.0 mL) via syringe.
• CO Surrogate Addition: Add N-formyl saccharin (2a) (0.30 mmol, 1.5 equiv) as a solid in one portion.
• Reaction Execution: Heat the stirred mixture at 100°C for 16 hours.
• Work-up: Cool to room temperature. Dilute with ethyl acetate (20 mL) and wash with water (3 x 15 mL) and brine (15 mL).
• Purification: Dry the organic layer over Na₂SO₄, concentrate in vacuo, and purify the residue by flash column chromatography (silica gel, hexanes/EtOAc) to yield product A1.

Optimization Note: The use of N-formyl saccharin as a safe, solid CO surrogate was critical, providing an 86% yield of the desired spirocyclic product, significantly outperforming reactions using CO gas or other surrogates (e.g., Mo(CO)₆, dicobalt octacarbonyl) [39].

Table 2: Representative PNP Collection from a Divergent Intermediate Strategy [39]

PNP Class	Core Scaffold Description	Key Synthetic Transformation from Class A	Number of Compounds	Example Bioactivity Identified
A	Spiroindolylindanones	Pd-catalyzed dearomative carbonylation	41	Tubulin polymerization inhibitor
B	Spiro-indoline-indanones	Diastereoselective reduction	32	Hedgehog signaling inhibitor
C	N-Functionalized derivatives	Amide bond formation at amine	25	DNA synthesis inhibitor
D	Exocyclic-olefinic α-halo-amides	Reaction with α-halo-acetyl chloride	24	-
E	Indoline-indanone-isoquinolinone	Pd-catalyzed isoquinolinone fusion	32	De novo pyrimidine biosynthesis inhibitor
Total	8 Classes	-	154	4 distinct mechanistic bioactivities

Cheminformatic Validation and Chemical Space Analysis

Assessing PNP Collections

The structural novelty and diversity of synthesized PNP libraries must be validated computationally. Key analyses include:

• Scaffold and Diversity Analysis: Tools like the NPFC tool confirm the pseudo-natural status by identifying non-natural fragment combinations [40]. Diversity within a collection (e.g., the 154 dPNPs) is confirmed by calculating pairwise molecular similarities (e.g., Tanimoto coefficients based on Morgan fingerprints), showing low intra-class similarity but distinct clustering by class [39].
• Complexity Metrics: Successful PNPs should recapitulate NP-like complexity. Metrics like Fsp³ (fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons), number of stereocenters, and the normalized Spatial Score (nSPS) are calculated. PNPs from successful designs show high scores, distinct from flat synthetic libraries [40] [8].
• Chemical Space Visualization: Dimensionality reduction techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA), t-SNE, or UMAP are applied to descriptors (e.g., molecular weight, logP, polar surface area, complexity metrics) [42]. Effective PNP collections should populate distinct regions between classical NPs and common synthetic compounds, bridging the chemical space gap [9] [8].

Diagram 2: PNP Strategy in Chemical Space Context [39] [9] [8] (74 characters)

Biological Validation: Phenotypic Screening

PNP libraries are ideally suited for unbiased phenotypic screening to discover novel bioactivities. The 154-member dPNP library was screened in a cell painting assay and other phenotypic assays, leading to the identification of unique inhibitors from four different structural classes targeting distinct cellular processes: Hedgehog signaling, DNA synthesis, de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis, and tubulin polymerization [39]. This high hit rate and mechanistic diversity directly demonstrate the successful enrichment of biological relevance in the PNP collection.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for PNP Synthesis via Indole Dearomatization [39]

Reagent / Material	Function in PNP Synthesis	Specific Role & Notes
N-Formyl Saccharin	CO surrogate	Safe, solid source of carbon monoxide for pivotal palladium-catalyzed carbonylation/dearomatization cascade. Superior to CO gas in reported yields.
Palladium(II) Acetate (Pd(OAc)₂)	Catalyst precursor	Initiates the catalytic cycle for the key carbon-carbon bond forming and dearomatization steps.
Xantphos	Ligand	Bidentate phosphine ligand that stabilizes the palladium catalyst, crucial for the success of the carbonylation reaction.
Hantzsch Ester	Reducing agent	Used for the diastereoselective reduction of the indolenine moiety in Class A to access chiral indoline-based Class B PNPs.
Pyridinium p-Toluenesulfonate (PPTS)	Acid catalyst	Co-catalyst with Hantzsch ester for the reduction step.
α-Halo-acetyl Chlorides	Electrophilic coupling reagent	Reacts with the indolenine nitrogen of Class A to form exocyclic olefinic amides (Class D), adding a versatile handle for diversification.
2-Bromobenzoate Derivatives	Coupling partners	Used in a subsequent Pd-catalyzed cross-coupling/cyclization to fuse an isoquinolinone fragment onto the core, creating complex hybrid Class E PNPs.

The PNP strategy represents a powerful design paradigm that directly addresses the challenge of exploring biologically relevant but evolutionarily inaccessible regions of chemical space. By enabling the de novo combination of NP fragments, it generates novel, complex scaffolds with a high propensity for yielding unprecedented bioactivities, as evidenced by the discovery of unique chemotypes for four different targets from a single small library [39].

Future directions include:

• Algorithmic Expansion: Integrating AI-based generative models with the NPFC tool for in silico design of novel PNP scaffolds before synthesis [40] [42].
• Methodological Innovation: Developing new divergent intermediate platforms and complexity-generating reactions (e.g., dearomatizations, cycloadditions) to access even broader regions of three-dimensional chemical space.
• Accessibility: Leveraging large commercial libraries (like the Enamine collection, which contains ~1.1 million PNPs) for virtual and high-throughput screening, providing rapid access to pseudo-natural chemical space without bespoke synthesis [40].
• Target Deconvolution: Applying advanced chemical proteomics and omics techniques to rapidly identify the molecular targets of bioactive PNPs discovered in phenotypic screens.

By continuing to bridge the gap between natural product inspiration and synthetic innovation, the PNP strategy is poised to play a central role in the next generation of chemical probe and drug discovery.

Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS) and Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS) for Scaffold Generation

Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS) and Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS) represent two powerful, complementary strategies for generating small-molecule libraries with high skeletal diversity. DOS aims to maximize structural diversity within a compound collection, often through synthetic innovation to create novel, complex scaffolds that occupy broad regions of chemical space [43]. In contrast, BIOS is a hypothesis-driven approach that uses the structural motifs of biologically validated natural products as starting points to explore regions of chemical space known to be rich in bioactivity [44]. Both strategies are framed as essential responses to a critical challenge in modern drug discovery: the limited chemical space covered by traditional combinatorial and commercially available libraries, which are often structurally simplistic and fail to modulate challenging biological targets like protein-protein interactions [43] [45]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical guide to the core principles, methodologies, and applications of DOS and BIOS, contextualized within the ongoing research to map and exploit the biologically relevant chemical space traditionally occupied by natural products.

Theoretical Framework: Navigating Biologically Relevant Chemical Space

The concept of "chemical space"—the multi-dimensional descriptor space encompassing all possible small organic molecules—is central to library design. Research indicates that natural products and synthetic compounds occupy distinct, yet partially overlapping, subspaces. Natural products, shaped by evolution, inherently reside in biologically relevant chemical space; they possess the structural complexity and three-dimensionality necessary for selective interactions with biomacromolecules [43] [46]. In contrast, historical synthetic libraries have been heavily biased toward flat, aromatic structures, occupying a narrow and often synthetically accessible region of chemical space [47].

This disparity has practical consequences. While traditional libraries have been successful against conventional targets like enzymes and receptors, they have largely failed against "undruggable" targets such as transcription factors or protein-protein interfaces [43]. These difficult targets often require modulators with complex, pre-organized three-dimensional structures—features intrinsic to natural products [45]. Therefore, the primary thesis driving DOS and BIOS is that populating screening collections with compounds that mimic the structural and chemical features of natural products will increase the likelihood of finding probes for novel biology.

Four principal components define structural diversity in this context:

• Skeletal (Scaffold) Diversity: The presence of distinct molecular frameworks [43].
• Stereochemical Diversity: Variation in the orientation of functional groups in three-dimensional space [43].
• Appendage Diversity: Variation in functional groups and substituents attached to a common scaffold [43].
• Functional Group Diversity: The presence of different chemical moieties capable of diverse interactions [43].

Among these, scaffold diversity is paramount, as the core molecular framework primarily determines the overall shape and display of chemical information, which in turn dictates biological function [43].

Table 1: Comparison of DOS and BIOS Strategies for Scaffold Generation

Aspect	Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS)	Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS)
Core Philosophy	Maximize structural diversity to broadly explore chemical space.	Focus on biologically pre-validated regions of chemical space inspired by evolution.
Inspiration	Synthetic creativity and strategies (e.g., build/couple/pair).	Structural conservatism in evolution of proteins and natural products [44].
Starting Point	Simple, readily available building blocks.	Core scaffolds of bioactive natural product families [44].
Primary Goal	Generate unprecedented skeletal complexity and diversity.	Synthesize compound collections with "focused diversity" enriched in bioactivity [44].
Relationship to Natural Product Space	Can intersect or expand beyond it.	Directly targets and explores its subspaces.
Key Challenge	Designing pathways that efficiently generate diverse scaffolds.	Hierarchical classification and selection of appropriate bioactive scaffolds [44].

Core Methodologies and Synthetic Strategies

Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS) Pathways

DOS employs forward-synthetic analysis to design short synthetic sequences (typically 3-5 steps) that efficiently convert simple starting materials into complex, diverse scaffolds. Key strategies include:

a. Build/Couple/Pair (B/C/P): This is a foundational DOS algorithm.

• Build: Assemble functionalized building blocks.
• Couple: Combine these blocks linearly to create a common precursor with multiple, strategically placed reactive functional groups (e.g., alkenes, alkynes, aldehydes).
• Pair: Intramolecularly pair these functional groups in different combinations using varied reactions (e.g., ring-closing metathesis, cycloadditions, nucleophilic additions) to generate divergent skeletal frameworks from a single precursor [48] [49].

b. Functional Group Pairing Strategy: A related approach where a single, densely functionalized intermediate is subjected to different conditions that trigger cyclization between specific pairs of functional groups (e.g., alkene/alkyne, amine/aldehyde), leading to distinct scaffolds [45] [49]. For example, a substrate with alkene, alkyne, and amine groups could be routed to different heterocyclic cores via ring-closing metathesis, gold-catalyzed cyclization, or imine formation, respectively.

c. Privileged Substructure-Based DOS (pDOS): This strategy incorporates recognized "privileged substructures"—molecular motifs frequently found in bioactive compounds (e.g., pyrimidine, benzodiazepine)—into DOS pathways. These substructures act as "chemical navigators," enhancing the probability that the resulting diverse library will exhibit bioactivity [45].

d. Complexity-Generating Reactions: DOS relies on high-yielding, robust reactions that rapidly increase molecular complexity. These include:

• Multi-Component Reactions (MCRs): Converge three or more building blocks into a single product, introducing multiple points of diversity in one step [48] [49].
• Cycloadditions (e.g., [4+2], [3+2]): Efficiently construct cyclic systems with control over stereochemistry [49].
• Ring-Closing Metathesis (RCM): A versatile method for forming mid-sized and macrocyclic rings [45] [49].
• Tandem or Cascade Reactions: Sequences of transformations occurring in one pot, converting simple substrates into complex products [49].

Diagram 1: DOS Scaffold Generation via Build/Couple/Pair Strategy

Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS) Pathways

BIOS uses principles of evolutionary conservation to guide synthesis. The workflow involves:

a. Hierarchical Classification: Bioactive natural products are classified into structural families based on their underlying scaffolds. Software tools like Scaffold Hunter facilitate the visualization and navigation of these structurally related, biologically annotated compound families [44].

b. Scaffold Selection: The core scaffold of a promising natural product family is selected as the starting point. This scaffold embodies the "privileged" structural information evolved for biological interaction.

c. Synthesis of Focused Libraries: The natural product-derived scaffold is then synthetically decorated or simplified to create a library with "focused diversity." This involves varying appendages and stereochemistry while preserving the core bioactive framework. The synthesis may aim to reproduce the natural product exactly, create simplified analogs, or prepare hybrid structures combining motifs from different natural product classes [44] [50].

The underlying hypothesis is that if a scaffold has evolved to bind to a specific protein fold, then analogs based on that scaffold are predisposed to bind to proteins with the same or similar folds, potentially leading to new probes or inhibitors [46].

Diagram 2: BIOS Workflow from Natural Product to Focused Libraries

Experimental Protocols and Case Studies

Case Study: DOS for a Protein-Protein Interaction Inhibitor (2016)

This study employed a privileged substructure-based DOS (pDOS) strategy to discover an inhibitor of the LRS-RagD protein-protein interaction (PPI), a regulator of mTORC1 signaling [45].

A. Library Design & Synthesis Protocol:

• Core Design: A highly functionalized pyrimidodiazepine intermediate was designed, containing five distinct reactive sites (labeled A-E).
• Divergent Synthesis: Using a functional group pairing strategy, nine distinct polyheterocyclic scaffolds (I-IX) were synthesized from the common intermediate. Key pairing reactions included:
  • Intramolecular Substitution (A-B pair): Formation of tetracycles via activation of an alcohol and displacement.
  • Ring-Closing Metathesis (B-C pair): Construction of fused 6-, 7-, and 10-membered rings using Grubbs' 2nd generation catalyst.
  • Rhodium-Catalyzed [2+2] Cycloaddition: Reaction of an alkyne and an imine to form a β-lactam ring (scaffold IV).
• Library Production: Each distinct scaffold was further diversified with different appendages to create a final library for screening.

B. Screening & Validation Protocol:

• High-Throughput Screening (HTS): The library was screened using an ELISA-based assay measuring inhibition of the LRS-RagD interaction.
• Hit Identification: Compound 21f was identified as a potent and specific inhibitor (IC₅₀ in the low micromolar range).
• Mechanistic Validation:
  • Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP): Confirmed that 21f disrupted the endogenous LRS-RagD complex in cells.
  • mTORC1 Pathway Assay: Treated cells were analyzed via western blotting for phosphorylation of S6K1 (a downstream target of mTORC1). Results showed 21f inhibited amino acid-dependent mTORC1 activation.
  • Specificity Testing: 21f did not affect other upstream mTORC1 activators (e.g., growth factors), confirming its specific action through the LRS-RagD PPI axis.

Diagram 3: Discovery Workflow for a PPI Inhibitor from a pDOS Library

Case Study: BIOS-Inspired Discovery of Phosphatase Inhibitors

An early proof-of-concept study demonstrated the power of BIOS to yield novel chemical probes for poorly characterized targets [50].

A. Library Design & Synthesis Protocol:

• Scaffold Selection: Natural products known for their protein-binding properties were used as inspiration. Researchers did not aim to replicate the natural product exactly but to extract their core structural motifs.
• Library Synthesis: Using DOS principles (such as solid-phase synthesis and stereoselective transformations), several libraries based on these natural product-inspired skeletons were generated. The synthesis focused on creating "focused diversity" around the privileged core.

B. Screening & Discovery Protocol:

• Target-Based Screening: Libraries were screened in in vitro enzymatic assays against a panel of clinically relevant human phosphatases—targets considered challenging for drug discovery.
• Hit Identification: The campaign led to the discovery of four novel classes of phosphatase inhibitors.
• Impact: Two of these classes represented the first known inhibitors for their respective phosphatase targets, providing essential chemical tools for studying these proteins' biological roles.

Table 2: Summary of Key Experimental Findings from Case Studies

Strategy	Target Class	Key Synthetic Approach	Screening Method	Outcome	Significance
Privileged DOS (pDOS) [45]	Protein-Protein Interaction (LRS-RagD)	Functional Group Pairing on Pyrimidodiazepine Core	ELISA-based HTS	Inhibitor 21f (IC₅₀ ~μM)	First-in-class chemical probe for mTORC1 regulation via a specific PPI.
BIOS [50]	Phosphatases (multiple)	Natural Product-Inspired Scaffold Decoration	In vitro enzymatic assay	Four novel inhibitor classes	Provided first chemical tools for two previously "undrugged" phosphatases.
DOS-DNA Encoded [48]	Various (DEL Technology)	On-DNA Multicomponent & Cycloaddition Reactions	Affinity Selection (DNA sequencing)	Expansion of DEL chemical space with sp³-rich, complex scaffolds.	Addresses the flatness and lack of complexity in traditional DELs.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

• Building Blocks for Diversity: Chiral epoxides, amino alcohols, diversified anhydrides, and functionalized olefins/alkynes are essential for introducing appendage and stereochemical diversity in both DOS and BIOS pathways [45] [49].
• Catalysts for Complexity-Generating Reactions:
  • Metathesis Catalysts: Grubbs' 2nd Generation catalyst is indispensable for ring-closing metathesis (RCM) to form macrocycles and fused rings [45].
  • Gold(I) Catalysts: Used for activating alkynes towards cyclizations with various nucleophiles, enabling rapid heterocycle formation [49].
  • Rhodium Complexes: Employed in cycloaddition reactions, such as the [2+2] oxygenative cycloaddition to form β-lactams [45].
  • Organocatalysts: Provide asymmetric induction in key bond-forming steps (e.g., Michael additions) to create stereochemically diverse libraries [49].
• Functional Group Pairing Reagents: Sodium borohydride (NaBH₄) for selective reductions, methanesulfonyl chloride (MsCl) for alcohol activation, and Grignard reagents for nucleophilic additions to imines are crucial for divergent pathways from common intermediates [45].
• Screening & Validation Reagents:
  • ELISA Kits: For target-based HTS of protein-protein interactions [45].
  • Antibodies for Western Blot/Co-IP: Phospho-specific antibodies (e.g., anti-p-S6K1) and antibodies for target proteins (e.g., anti-LRS, anti-RagD) are necessary for mechanistic validation in cells [45].
  • DNA-Compatible Reagents: For integrating DOS with DNA-encoded library (DEL) technology, reagents must be compatible with aqueous conditions and not damage DNA tags (e.g., water-soluble palladium catalysts, mild reducing agents) [48].

Future Perspectives and Convergence

The field is evolving beyond purely chemical diversity metrics toward assessing biological performance diversity—the ability of a library to produce hits across a wide range of biological assays [51]. Future directions include:

• Integration with Novel Technologies: Combining DOS/BIOS with DNA-Encoded Library (DEL) technology is a powerful trend. DOS can remedy the lack of scaffold diversity in traditional DELs by incorporating sp³-rich, complex scaffolds through DNA-compatible complexity-generating reactions [48].
• AI-Guided Design: Machine learning models trained on both structural data and biological assay results can help predict which scaffold features correlate with broad bioactivity, guiding the design of next-generation performance-diverse libraries [51].
• Broader Target Space: DOS and BIOS libraries will continue to be primary tools for interrogating newly identified "undruggable" targets from functional genomics, including RNA-modifying proteins and synthetic lethal interactions in cancer [43] [47].

The convergence of synthetic strategy (DOS/BIOS), enabling technologies (DEL, AI), and biological insight is creating an unprecedented capability to generate bespoke chemical probes. This empowers researchers to comprehensively map the biologically relevant chemical space and translate genomic discoveries into functional understanding and novel therapeutic modalities.

Machine Learning and Reinforcement Learning for Navigating Synthetically Accessible Space

This technical guide explores the integration of machine learning (ML), particularly reinforcement learning (RL), with cheminformatics to navigate and exploit the synthetically accessible chemical space. Framed within a broader thesis on the divergent chemical spaces occupied by natural products (NPs) and synthetic compounds (SCs), this whitepaper addresses the central challenge of de novo molecular design with guaranteed synthetic feasibility [52]. We present the Policy Gradient for Forward Synthesis (PGFS) framework as a state-of-the-art RL solution that embeds synthetic accessibility directly into the generative process by iteratively applying validated chemical reactions to building blocks [52]. The discussion is contextualized by a comparative analysis of NPs and SCs, highlighting their distinct structural and property landscapes, which necessitates specialized molecular representations and exploration strategies [27] [8]. This synthesis of RL and cheminformatics represents a paradigm shift towards automating drug discovery while radically expanding the exploitable, synthesizable chemical universe [52] [7].

The concept of "chemical space" – the multidimensional universe encompassing all possible organic molecules – is foundational to modern drug discovery. Within this near-infinite expanse, two historically significant and structurally distinct regions are defined: the natural product (NP) space and the synthetic compound (SC) space. NPs, evolved through biological selection, are characterized by high structural complexity, diverse stereochemistry, and a high fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons, which often confer favorable bioavailability and potent biological activity [27] [53]. In contrast, SCs, designed and produced through laboratory synthesis, have traditionally adhered to more conservative "drug-like" rules, favoring flat, aromatic structures for easier synthesis [8].

A critical and persistent gap exists between in silico molecular design and practical laboratory synthesis. While deep generative models can propose novel structures with optimal predicted properties, they frequently ignore a fundamental question: Can this molecule be feasibly synthesized? [52] This disconnect severely limits the translational impact of computational design. The challenge, therefore, is to develop intelligent systems that can navigate the synthetically accessible chemical space – the subset of chemical space reachable through known, reliable reactions from available starting materials.

This is where reinforcement learning (RL) offers a transformative framework [52]. By formulating molecular construction as a sequential decision-making process (selecting a building block, then a reaction), RL agents can learn optimal navigation policies within the constrained graph of synthesizable molecules. This guide delves into the technical core of this approach, providing researchers with a detailed examination of the methodologies, tools, and validations required to advance this frontier.

Characterizing the Divergent Chemical Space of Natural and Synthetic Compounds

Effective navigation requires a map. A quantitative understanding of the differing characteristics of NPs and SCs is essential for designing algorithms that can traverse or bridge these regions.

Table 1: Comparative Structural and Property Analysis of Natural Products vs. Synthetic Compounds [8]

Property / Descriptor	Trend in Natural Products (NPs)	Trend in Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Implication for Exploration
Molecular Size	Increases over time; generally larger than SCs.	Varies within a limited, "drug-like" range.	NP-inspired scaffolds may require handling larger, more complex molecules.
Ring Systems	Increase in non-aromatic, fused, and bridged rings; more sugar rings (glycosylation).	Increase in aromatic rings (esp. 5 & 6-membered); fewer fused assemblies.	Fingerprints must capture complex, saturated ring systems vs. flat aromatic systems.
Fsp3 (Fraction of sp³ carbons)	Higher, indicating more 3D complexity and saturation.	Lower, indicating more planar, aromatic structures.	Higher Fsp3 correlates with better clinical outcomes; a key target for generative models.
Structural Diversity & Uniqueness	High scaffold diversity; chemical space is less concentrated.	Broader synthetic diversity but constrained by "ease of synthesis".	NP space is a rich source of novel, biologically pre-validated scaffolds for RL exploration.
Biological Relevance	Intrinsically high due to evolutionary selection.	Has declined over time despite increased synthetic diversity.	Navigating towards NP-like regions may increase the probability of bioactivity.

The structural distinctiveness of NPs creates a representation challenge for traditional cheminformatic tools. Standard molecular fingerprints like Extended Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFPs), while the de-facto standard for drug-like SCs, may not optimally capture the features of NPs [27]. Recent benchmarking of over 20 fingerprint types on >100,000 unique NPs revealed that circular fingerprints (ECFP, FCFP) and path-based fingerprints (Atom-Pair) generally perform well for bioactivity prediction, but the best choice is task-dependent [27]. Furthermore, specialized neural network-derived fingerprints trained to distinguish NPs from SCs have shown superior performance in NP-focused virtual screening, illustrating the need for tailored representations [53]. This duality in chemical space necessitates adaptive exploration strategies, which RL is uniquely positioned to provide.

Core Methodology: Reinforcement Learning Frameworks for Forward Synthesis

The Policy Gradient for Forward Synthesis (PGFS) framework exemplifies the RL approach to navigating synthesizable space [52]. It redefines de novo design as a problem of guided, multi-step synthetic pathway discovery.

The PGFS Markov Decision Process (MDP)

The environment is formalized as a Markov Decision Process (MDP):

• State (sₜ): The molecular structure at synthesis step t.
• Action (aₜ): A hierarchical decision. First, select a candidate reaction template applicable to the current molecule. Second, select a specific building block (reactant) from a purchasable library to pair with the current molecule in the chosen reaction.
• Transition: Applying the reaction and building block to the current molecule deterministically yields the product molecule at state sₜ₊₁.
• Reward (Rₜ): A scalar signal guiding learning. This typically combines:
  • Property Reward (R_prop): Based on a calculated molecular property (e.g., Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness - QED, penalized logP for solubility).
  • Synthetic Accessibility Reward (R_sa): Often implicit, as the action space is restricted to validated chemical reactions, ensuring every proposed step is feasible by construction.
• Policy (πθ): A neural network parameterized by θ that maps a state to a probability distribution over actions. The goal is to optimize θ to maximize the expected cumulative reward.

Policy Gradient Training

PGFS employs a policy gradient method (e.g., REINFORCE or PPO) to optimize its policy network [52]. The core objective is to maximize the expected reward J(θ) of trajectories (synthetic pathways) generated by the policy. The gradient is estimated as: ∇θ J(θ) ≈ 𝔼 [ Σₜ (∇θ log πθ(aₜ|sₜ)) * Gₜ ] where Gₜ is the discounted return from step t. A critic network (value function) is often used to reduce variance in the gradient estimates.

Diagram Title: PGFS RL Agent's Hierarchical Decision-Making Workflow

Experimental Protocol for PGFS Implementation

• Environment Setup:

  • Reaction Template Set: Curate a set of SMARTS-based reaction rules from sources like USPTO or Reaxys, ensuring broad coverage and robust applicability [52].
  • Building Block Library: Assemble a virtual library of commercially available small molecules (e.g., from ZINC, Enamine). Pre-process by standardizing structures and removing salts [52].
  • Property Calculator: Implement functions for target properties (e.g., QED, penalized logP, synthetic complexity score).

• Agent Training:

  • Network Architecture: Implement a policy network (e.g., Transformer or GNN-based) that encodes the molecular state and outputs scores for reaction and building block selection.
  • Rollout Generation: Run the current policy in the environment to generate multiple complete trajectories (molecules and their synthesis paths).
  • Gradient Update: Compute rewards for each trajectory. Use the policy gradient algorithm to update the network parameters, increasing the likelihood of high-reward actions.
  • Validation: Periodically evaluate the policy by generating a set of molecules and calculating the distribution of their properties and synthetic accessibility scores.

Advanced Fingerprinting and Representation for Guiding Navigation

The effectiveness of an RL agent depends critically on its perception of the state (molecular representation). In the context of exploring NP-like regions, selecting the right fingerprint is crucial.

Table 2: Performance of Selected Fingerprint Types on Natural Product Tasks [27]

Fingerprint Category	Example Algorithms	Key Characteristics	Performance on NP Bioactivity Prediction
Circular	ECFP4, FCFP4	Encodes circular atom neighborhoods; not predefined.	Strong, robust performance; standard baseline.
Path-based	Atom-Pair (AP), Topological Torsion (TT)	Encodes distances/paths between atom pairs.	Excellent performance, often matches or exceeds circular fingerprints.
Substructure-based	MACCS (166 keys), PubChem	Each bit represents a predefined substructural key.	Variable; can be limited by the fixed dictionary's relevance to NP motifs.
Pharmacophore	Pharmacophore Pairs/Triplets	Encodes spatial arrangement of features (e.g., H-bond donor).	Moderate; depends on accurate 3D conformation.
Neural	Neural Fingerprint (NP-specific) [53]	Derived from neural network activations trained on NP/SC classification.	State-of-the-art for NP similarity search and virtual screening tasks.

The emergence of neural fingerprints is particularly significant [53]. By training a multi-layer perceptron or graph neural network to distinguish NPs from SCs, the activation patterns in the network's hidden layers form a representation that implicitly encodes "natural-product-likeness." Using such a fingerprint as part of the state representation or the reward signal can directly steer the RL agent towards exploring biologically relevant, NP-inspired regions of the synthesizable space.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Software, Databases, and Libraries for RL-Based Chemical Space Exploration

Tool / Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Key Utility in RL/Navigation
RDKit	Open-Source Cheminformatics Library	Molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, reaction application.	Core backend for building the chemical environment, processing molecules, and computing states [27] [53].
COCONUT / CMNPD	Natural Product Databases	Comprehensive, curated collections of unique natural product structures with source organism annotations [27] [54].	Provide the reference NP chemical space for analysis, training contrastive models (neural fingerprints), and benchmarking [53] [8].
ZINC / Enamine REAL	Purchasable Compound Databases	Virtual libraries of commercially available screening compounds and building blocks.	Source for the initial "purchasable" state and action space (building blocks) in forward-synthesis RL frameworks like PGFS [52].
PGFS Framework	Reinforcement Learning Codebase	Implements the policy gradient agent, hierarchical action space, and molecular environment [52].	Ready-to-adapt or extendable implementation for de novo design with synthetic feasibility.
FPSim2 / Chemfp	High-Performance Fingerprint Search	Enables rapid similarity search and clustering in large chemical libraries.	Used for creating training datasets (e.g., finding SC analogs of NPs) and for validating generated molecules against known spaces [53].
t-SNE / UMAP / TMAP	Dimensionality Reduction & Visualization	Projects high-dimensional chemical fingerprints into 2D/3D for visual mapping [7].	Critical for visual validation of chemical space exploration, showing where RL-generated molecules reside relative to NPs and SCs [7] [8].
Open Reaction Databases (USPTO)	Reaction Datasets	Collections of published chemical reactions with associated templates.	Source for constructing the feasible reaction action space in synthesis-aware generative models [52].

Experimental Validation and Case Studies

Benchmarking Generative Performance

The PGFS framework was benchmarked against other generative models (e.g., RNNs, VAEs) on standard objectives like maximizing QED (drug-likeness) and optimizing penalized logP (a measure of solubility) [52]. Key quantitative results include:

• Property Optimization: PGFS achieved state-of-the-art performance, generating molecules with top-tier QED and penalized logP scores.
• Synthetic Validity: A key differentiator was that 100% of the molecules generated by PGFS were guaranteed to be synthetically accessible via the predefined reaction pathways, whereas a significant fraction of molecules from other models were not [52].
• Diversity: The model produced diverse molecular scaffolds, not just incremental improvements on known structures.

In-silico Proof-of-Concept: Targeting HIV

The practical utility of PGFS was demonstrated in a target-directed in-silico case study [52]. The reward function was modified to include a component based on docking scores against three HIV protein targets. The RL agent successfully generated novel, synthetically accessible molecules with predicted high affinity. This validated the framework's ability to perform lead discovery in a constrained, synthesizable space toward a specific biological objective.

Future Directions and Challenges

• Integration with Automated Synthesis: The ultimate validation is the physical creation of molecules. Closing the loop with robotic synthesis platforms (self-driving laboratories) is the next frontier, where RL agents propose molecules and routes that are automatically synthesized and tested [52].
• Visual Navigation and Human-in-the-Loop: Advanced visualization tools like TMAP allow scientists to visually explore high-dimensional chemical space maps [7]. Future systems could integrate these visualizations for interactive RL, where human experts guide the agent toward promising but unexplored regions.
• Exploiting NP Fragment Libraries: Recent work generating comprehensive fragment libraries from massive NP collections (like COCONUT) reveals unique, complex scaffolds not found in synthetic libraries [54]. Incorporating these NP-derived fragments as privileged building blocks within an RL framework is a powerful strategy for bio-inspired discovery.
• Multi-Objective and Pareto Optimization: Drug design requires balancing multiple, often competing properties (potency, solubility, metabolic stability, synthesizability). Advanced RL methods that learn Pareto fronts in this multidimensional objective space are critical for practical application.

Navigating the synthetically accessible chemical space is a grand challenge in modern drug discovery. Reinforcement learning, particularly through frameworks like PGFS, provides a rigorous and powerful methodological foundation by directly integrating the rules of chemical synthesis into the generative process [52]. This approach is profoundly informed by the structural and biological lessons from the natural product world, whose distinct chemical space serves as both an inspiration and a benchmark [27] [8]. By leveraging specialized molecular representations like neural fingerprints and operating within constrained environments built from reaction databases and purchasable blocks, RL agents can learn to propose novel, optimal, and—most importantly—realizable drug candidates. This convergence of machine intelligence and chemical knowledge marks a decisive step towards a more automated, efficient, and creative future for molecular design.

Overcoming Barriers: Challenges in NP Utilization and Library Design Optimization

Addressing the Synthetic Accessibility and Supply Challenges of Complex NPs

The chemical space occupied by natural products (NPs) represents a unique and historically invaluable region for drug discovery, characterized by high structural complexity, rich stereochemistry, and evolutionary-optimized bioactivity [55]. In contrast, the regions of chemical space explored by conventional synthetic compounds often prioritize synthetic feasibility and library diversity, sometimes at the expense of structural complexity and depth [56]. This dichotomy presents a central challenge: NPs possess privileged bioactivity—evidenced by their contribution to a majority of anti-infectives and anticancer drugs [55]—but their inherent structural complexity renders them synthetically inaccessible, creating severe supply bottlenecks for research and development [57].

Synthetic Accessibility (SA) has thus emerged as a pivotal, practical metric that determines whether a molecule designed in silico can be translated into a tangible compound in the laboratory [58]. For complex NPs, which frequently feature dense ring systems, multiple chiral centers, and intricate macrocycles, SA scores are typically high, indicating significant difficulty [59]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical guide to the modern computational and experimental strategies aimed at navigating this challenge. It details methods to quantify SA, innovative synthesis-driven design paradigms, and bio-inspired strategies to bridge the gap between the biologically relevant chemical space of NPs and the synthetically accessible space of drug candidates.

Computational Scoring of Synthetic Accessibility

Quantifying synthetic accessibility computationally provides a critical filter to prioritize molecules and guide design before costly laboratory work begins [60]. Scoring models fall into two primary categories: molecular structure-based models and synthetic route-based models [60].

Core Scoring Methodologies and Comparative Analysis

The foundational approach, as implemented in tools like RDKit's sascorer.py, combines fragment contributions from known chemical databases with a penalty for molecular complexity [58]. Newer methods integrate deeper chemical knowledge to improve accuracy and relevance for drug discovery projects [61].

Table 1: Comparison of Key Synthetic Accessibility Scoring Models [60] [59] [61]

Model Name	Type	Core Principle	Key Inputs	Output	Primary Advantage
SAScore	Structure-Based	Fragment frequency + complexity penalty	Molecular structure	Score (1=easy, 10=hard) [58]	Fast, widely implemented benchmark
BR-SAScore	Hybrid (Structure & Route)	Separates building block (B) and reaction-derived (R) fragments	Molecular structure, building block set, reaction rules	Interpretable score & fragment-level diagnosis [59]	Chemically interpretable; aligns with specific synthesis planner capability
SCScore/RAscore	Route-Based	Machine learning prediction of retrosynthetic route success	Molecular structure	Probability of route existence [60]	Directly tied to synthesis planning feasibility
Growing/Linking Optimizer	Generative & Route-Based	Reaction-based generation from available building blocks	User-defined fragments, CABB dataset [61]	Novel molecules with implicit synthetic routes	Generates synthetically accessible molecules by design

The BR-SAScore Protocol: A Detailed Workflow

BR-SAScore enhances the classic SAScore by explicitly incorporating knowledge of available building blocks and reaction rules, providing a more realistic assessment for medicinal chemistry [59]. Below is a protocol for its implementation and application.

Objective: To calculate a synthetic accessibility score that differentiates between fragments available in building blocks and those that must be formed through chemical reactions.

Materials & Software:

• Input Molecule: Target compound in SMILES or SDF format.
• Building Block Dataset: A curated list of commercially available building blocks (e.g., filtered from vendors like Enamine, Molport) [61].
• Reaction Rule Set: A collection of validated reaction transforms (e.g., LHASA rules translated to SMARTS) [62].
• Computational Environment: Python with RDKit, NumPy, and pandas libraries.

Experimental Procedure:

• Fragment Decomposition: Fragment the target molecule into all possible substructures using the Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFPs) algorithm [59].
• Fragment Classification: For each substructure, query it against the Building Block Dataset and the Reaction Rule Set.
  • Building Block Fragment (BFrag): Assign if the substructure exists identically within a known building block.
  • Reaction-Driven Fragment (RFrag): Assign if the substructure is a known product core or common intermediate in the applied reaction rules.
• Score Calculation:
  • Calculate BScore: The average historical synthesis ease of matched BFrags (based on frequency in databases like PubChem).
  • Calculate RScore: The average feasibility score of matched RFrags (based on reaction reliability and yield precedents).
  • Calculate ComplexityPenalty: A weighted sum of penalties for size, stereocenters, bridgehead/spiro atoms, and macrocycles [59].
  • Compute final score: BR-SAScore = (BScore + RScore) - ComplexityPenalty [59].
• Interpretation: A lower score indicates higher synthetic accessibility. The model specifically identifies which problematic fragments (e.g., a rare RFrag with a high complexity penalty) are responsible for a poor score, guiding synthetic chemists toward feasible analogues [59].

Visualization: The Synthetic Accessibility Scoring Framework

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and data integration of the BR-SAScore model.

Synthesis-Driven Strategies for Accessible NP-Inspired Compounds

Moving beyond scoring, the most direct strategy is to generate novel compounds that are synthetically accessible by design. This is achieved by embedding synthetic chemistry rules directly into the molecular generation process [61].

Generative AI with Synthetic Constraints

Models like Growing Optimizer (GO) and Linking Optimizer (LO) operate on principles of fragment growing and linking, using only curated sets of Commercially Available Building Blocks (CABB) and robust reaction templates [61].

Key Experimental Protocol: Fragment Linking with Linking Optimizer (LO) Objective: To generate a novel linker that connects two provided molecular fragments (e.g., pharmacophores from an NP) via a synthetically feasible pathway.

Materials & Software:

• Input Fragments: Two molecular fragments, each with a specified connection point (exit vector).
• CABB Dataset: A pre-processed set of >1 million available building blocks, filtered by properties like molecular weight <350 [61].
• Reaction Template Library: SMARTS patterns for reliable bi-reactant and uni-reactant reactions.
• LO Model Architecture: A neural network with a Building Block Neural Network (BBNN) and a Single Reactant Reaction Network (SRRN) [61].

Procedure:

• Encoding: The input fragments are encoded as Morgan fingerprints and fed into the model.
• Linker Selection: The BBNN predicts the likelihood of each building block in the CABB dataset serving as a suitable linker core between the two fragments.
• Pathway Expansion: The SRRN determines if a uni-reactant reaction (e.g., a functional group interconversion) should be applied to the selected linker before it connects to the input fragments, refining its properties.
• Virtual Synthesis Tree: The model outputs a "molecular tree" representing the proposed synthetic steps: Linker Selection → (Optional) Linker Modification → Connection to Fragment A → Connection to Fragment B.
• Output & Validation: The final connected molecule is output. Its implicit synthetic route guarantees a high probability of synthetic accessibility, which can be further validated with a scoring tool like BR-SAScore.

Visualization: Synthesis-Driven Molecular Generation Workflow

The diagram below contrasts the traditional virtual screening approach with the modern synthesis-driven generation paradigm.

Biomimetic and Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of Complex NPs

When the target is the NP itself or a very close analog, biomimetic synthesis offers a powerful strategy by mimicking nature's own biosynthetic logic [57].

Biomimetic Synthesis Protocols

Biomimetic synthesis aims to replicate key biogenic steps, such as polyene cyclizations or oxidative couplings, in the laboratory, often achieving superior efficiency and stereocontrol compared to fully linear synthetic routes [56] [57].

Experimental Protocol: Biomimetic Oxidative Coupling for Dimeric NPs Objective: To synthesize a dimeric natural product (e.g., a bisindole alkaloid) via a biomimetic oxidative coupling of two monomeric phenolic or indolic units.

Materials:

• Monomer Substrate: Purified or synthesized monomeric precursor.
• Oxidant: Mimics the function of plant oxidase enzymes. Common choices include:
  • FeCl₃ / (PhIO)ₙ: For phenol coupling.
  • V(O)(acac)₂ / t-BuOOH: For selective indole coupling.
  • Electrochemical Cell: For a clean, tunable, and sustainable oxidation.
• Template/Additive: A chiral ligand or Lewis acid to control regio- and stereoselectivity.
• Solvent: Dry, degassed DCM, MeCN, or mixed solvent systems.

Procedure:

• Reaction Setup: Under an inert atmosphere (N₂/Ar), dissolve the monomer (1.0 equiv) in anhydrous solvent in a flame-dried flask.
• Template Addition: Add the chiral template or Lewis acid (0.1-0.3 equiv) to pre-organize the monomers.
• Oxidation: Add the oxidant (1.1-2.0 equiv) slowly at a controlled temperature (-78°C to 25°C, as dictated by the specific protocol). Monitor the reaction by TLC or LC-MS.
• Work-up & Purification: Quench the reaction (often with aqueous Na₂S₂O₃ or sat. NH₄Cl), extract with organic solvent, dry (MgSO₄), and concentrate.
• Analysis: Purify the crude product via flash chromatography. Characterize the dimer using NMR, HRMS, and compare optical rotation or CD spectrum to the natural product to confirm the biomimetic stereochemical outcome.

Challenges & Solutions: This approach often faces challenges with regioselectivity (which C-atoms couple) and scalability of oxidative reactions [57]. Integrating a chemoenzymatic step—using an engineered oxidase enzyme for the coupling—can provide exquisite selectivity under mild conditions, though enzyme stability and substrate scope remain active research areas [56].

Visualization: Strategies for Accessing NP Chemical Space

This diagram outlines the strategic decision-making process for accessing NP-like chemical space, balancing fidelity to the original structure against synthetic feasibility.

Datasets and Practical Implementation

The reliability of SA scoring and generative models depends entirely on the quality and relevance of the underlying chemical data.

Table 2: Key Datasets for Synthetic Accessibility Assessment & Generative Design [59] [61] [62]

Dataset Name	Type	Scale	Key Features & Use Case
PubChem / ChEMBL	Database of Known Compounds	Millions of compounds	Source for fragment frequency analysis in SAScore; provides "known chemical space" [59].
Enamine REAL / CABB	Commercially Available Building Blocks	Millions of molecules	Curated list of purchasable starting materials. Critical for training BR-SAScore (BScore) and defining the action space for GO/LO models [61].
USPTO / LHASA Rules	Reaction Databases	Hundreds of thousands of transforms	Curated, reliable chemical reactions. Translated into SMARTS rules to calculate RScore in BR-SAScore and to drive the generative steps in GO/LO [62].
SAVI-Space-2024	Synthetically Accessible Virtual Inventory	7.5 billion enumerated molecules (encoded in 1.4 GB space)	A chemical space generated by applying robust reaction rules to building blocks. Enables ultra-fast virtual screening within a pre-defined synthetically accessible region [62].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Implementing the protocols described requires specific computational and chemical resources.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Synthetic Accessibility Research

Item / Resource	Function	Technical Notes & Examples
Curated Building Block Sets	Provides the foundational chemical matter for all SA calculations and generative models.	Must be filtered for real availability, molecular weight, and functional group compatibility. Sources: Enamine, Molport, Mcule [61].
Reaction SMARTS Pattern Libraries	Encodes chemical knowledge for route-based scoring and generative chemistry.	Quality over quantity. Libraries derived from USPTO or expert-curated sets (e.g., LHASA transforms) are essential [62].
SA Scoring Software (e.g., RDKit SA_Score, BR-SAScore)	Provides the quantitative SA metric for molecule triage and model validation.	BR-SAScore offers superior interpretability by highlighting problematic fragments [59].
Generative AI Platforms (e.g., GO/LO implementation)	Generates novel, synthetically feasible molecule ideas directly from project constraints.	Key feature is the ability to accept user-defined input fragments and exit vectors for fragment linking/growing [61].
Biomimetic Oxidants & Template Reagents	Enables the key coupling and cyclization steps in NP synthesis.	Selectivity is paramount. Examples: Hypervalent iodine reagents (e.g., PIFA), chiral vanadium catalysts, electrochemical setups [57].

Addressing the synthetic accessibility and supply challenges of complex NPs is a multi-front endeavor that requires tight integration of computational prediction, generative design, and innovative synthesis. By framing the challenge within the broader context of chemical space, it becomes clear that the goal is not merely to replicate nature, but to develop strategies to navigate towards and exploit the biologically privileged regions of chemical space with synthetic feasibility as a primary constraint.

Future progress hinges on several key developments: the creation of larger, higher-quality domain-specific reaction datasets; the tighter integration of retrosynthetic planners with generative AI for end-to-end route-aware design; and advances in chemoenzymatic methods to reliably construct stereochemically dense NP cores [56] [61]. As these tools mature, the gap between the inspiring complexity of natural products and the practical demands of synthetic drug discovery will continue to narrow, unlocking new therapeutic opportunities grounded in synthetic reality.

The conceptual framework of "chemical space"—the multi-dimensional descriptor space encompassing all possible molecules—is central to modern drug discovery. Historically, this space has been navigated under the guidance of Lipinski's "Rule-of-Five" (Ro5), which defines the physicochemical boundaries for orally bioavailable small molecules. While invaluable, the Ro5 framework has implicitly constrained medicinal chemistry to a relatively narrow region of chemical space, predominantly occupied by synthetic, "flat" compounds rich in aromatic rings.

In contrast, natural products (NPs) evolved to interact with biological macromolecules and occupy a distinct, broader region. NPs typically exhibit greater structural complexity (increased sp3 character, stereogenic centers), molecular rigidity, and a higher prevalence of oxygen atoms, leading to improved shape diversity and target specificity. This divergence defines the core thesis: strategic integration of natural product-like complexity into synthetic libraries is essential for accessing underexplored biological targets, particularly protein-protein interactions and allosteric sites, thereby expanding the definition of "drug-like" chemical space.

Quantitative Comparison: NPs vs. Synthetic Libraries

Table 1: Physicochemical Property Comparison

Property	Rule-of-Five Compliant Compounds	Natural Products	Beyond-Ro5 (bRo5) Drugs
Molecular Weight (Da)	≤ 500	Often 300-700	500-1000+
cLogP	≤ 5	Wider range, often lower	Can be >5
H-bond Donors	≤ 5	Variable	Can be >5
H-bond Acceptors	≤ 10	Often higher	Can be >10
Fraction sp3 (Fsp3)	Often low (~0.3)	High (~0.5-0.8)	Increasingly targeted high
Rotatable Bonds	≤ 10	Often lower	Variable, can be higher
Chiral Centers	Few or none	Often multiple	Increasingly common
Principal Target Class	Enzymes, receptors	Diverse, including PPIs	PPIs, allosteric sites

Table 2: Performance Metrics in Drug Discovery

Metric	Synthetic Ro5 Libraries	NP-Inspired/Derived Libraries
Hit Rate for Novel Targets	Low to moderate	Historically high
PPI Inhibition Success	Low	Significantly higher
Chemical Tractability	High	Moderate, improving with new methods
Oral Bioavailability (%)	High (designed for)	Variable, can be optimized
Synthetic Steps (avg.)	Fewer	Historically more, now streamlined

Methodologies for Expanding into NP-Like Chemical Space

Library Design & Synthesis Protocols

Protocol A: Synthesis of Sp3-Rich, Chiral Scaffolds via Diversity-Oriented Synthesis (DOS)

• Objective: Generate small-molecule libraries with high three-dimensionality and stereochemical diversity.
• Materials: Chiral pool starting materials (e.g., amino acids, terpenes), robust coupling reagents (e.g., HATU, EDCI), asymmetric catalysts.
• Procedure: a. Scaffold Synthesis: Employ iterative branching pathways using multicomponent reactions (e.g., Ugi, Passerini) or build/couple/pair algorithms. b. Stereocenter Introduction: Utilize asymmetric catalysis (e.g., Jacobsen's catalysts for epoxidation) or enzymatic resolution. c. Peripheral Decorations: Perform late-stage functionalization (LSF) via C-H activation or cross-coupling on the complex core.
• Analysis: Characterize via HPLC for purity, NMR for stereochemistry confirmation, and calculate Fsp3 for all final compounds.

Protocol B: Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS)

• Objective: Synthesize simplified, synthetically tractable analogs of complex NP cores.
• Materials: Identified NP pharmacophore model, commercial fragments matching core geometry.
• Procedure: a. Pharmacophore Extraction: From NP co-crystal structures, define minimal 3D steric/electronic features. b. Scaffold Matching: Query databases for simpler, synthetically accessible cores with similar spatial orientation of key functional groups. c. Divergent Synthesis: Elaborate the matched core in a divergent manner to create an analog library.

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating bRo5 Compounds

Protocol C: Permeability Assessment for bRo5 Compounds (PAMPA & Cell-Based)

• Objective: Determine passive membrane permeability despite higher MW/H-bond count.
• Materials: PAMPA plate, MDCK or Caco-2 cell line, LC-MS/MS for quantification.
• Procedure: a. PAMPA Assay: Load donor well with 10 µM compound in pH 7.4 buffer. Use acceptor well with pH 7.4 or 5.0 buffer. Incubate 4-18h. Quantify compound in both wells via LC-MS. b. Cell-Based Assay: Culture monolayers on transwell inserts. Apply compound to apical chamber. Sample basolateral chamber over time (e.g., 0, 30, 60, 120 min). Measure apparent permeability (Papp).
• Calculation: Papp = (dQ/dt) / (A * C0), where dQ/dt is transport rate, A is membrane area, C0 is initial concentration.

Protocol D: Solubility and Aggregation State Analysis

• Objective: Ensure bRo5 compounds remain monomeric in assay buffers.
• Materials: Nephelometer, dynamic light scattering (DLS) instrument, 96-well filter plates.
• Procedure: a. Kinetic Solubility: Add DMSO stock to aqueous buffer (final 1% DMSO), shake, incubate 1h, filter, and quantify supernatant via HPLC-UV. b. Aggregation Detection: Measure solution turbidity via nephelometry. Perform DLS on 10-100 µM solutions to detect particle size >100 nm.

Visualization of Concepts and Workflows

Diagram 1: Expanding Drug-Like Chemical Space

Diagram 2: Biology-Oriented Synthesis (BIOS) Workflow

Diagram 3: Key Assays for bRo5 Compound Profiling

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Expanding Chemical Space Research

Item	Function & Rationale
Chiral Building Block Libraries	Provide stereochemical diversity as starting points for DOS; essential for introducing 3D complexity.
Macrocyclic Template Kits	Pre-synthesized macrocyclic cores (e.g., peptide-, steroid-based) to overcome synthetic hurdles in accessing PPI-inhibitor shapes.
Membrane Mimetics (e.g., Nanodiscs)	For solubilizing and studying PPI targets in a more native lipid environment during screening.
Asymmetric Catalysis Kits	Collections of well-defined chiral ligands/catalysts (e.g., BINAP derivatives, salen complexes) for stereocontrolled synthesis.
C-H Activation Catalysts	Specialized catalysts (e.g., Pd-based, Fe-porphyrins) for late-stage functionalization of complex NP analogs.
PAMPA & CACO-2 Assay Kits	Standardized systems for high-throughput permeability assessment of bRo5 compounds.
Cryo-EM Grids & Reagents	For determining structures of large, flexible bRo5 compounds bound to their complex biological targets (e.g., PPIs).
Fragment Libraries (3D-Enriched)	Collections of small, sp3-rich fragments for FBDD, providing better starting points for NP-like chemical space.

The quest for novel bioactive compounds requires efficient navigation of chemical space. The chemical space occupied by natural products (NPs) is distinct from that of synthetic compounds. NPs, honed by evolution, exhibit greater structural complexity, higher sp3 carbon content, and broader three-dimensionality, making them privileged scaffolds for modulating biological targets. However, the rediscovery of known compounds—a process termed dereplication—represents the primary bottleneck in natural product discovery. This guide details integrated strategies to dereplicate and prioritize NPs within the context of comparative chemical space analysis, accelerating the path to novel entities.

The Dereplication Funnel: A Multi-Tiered Approach

Effective dereplication employs a sequential, information-rich workflow to filter extracts rapidly.

Table 1: Tiered Dereplication Strategy and Key Metrics

Tier	Primary Tool(s)	Key Data Output	Typical Throughput	Goal
Tier 1: Rapid Profiling	UPLC-PDA-MS, Bioassay	UV spectrum, m/z, bioactivity	100-500 samples/day	Triage and crude grouping.
Tier 2: Targeted Identification	HRMS (LC-QTOF, LC-Orbitrap), MS/MS	Molecular formula, fragmentation pattern	20-100 samples/day	Molecular formula matching to NP databases.
Tier 3: Confirmation & Novelty Assessment	NMR (1D, 2D), Isolation	Full or partial structure elucidation	1-10 samples/week	Unambiguous structure determination.

Experimental Protocol: Tier 1 UPLC-PDA-HRMS Analysis

• Sample Preparation: Lyophilized crude extract is dissolved in appropriate solvent (e.g., 50% MeOH in H2O) to a concentration of 1-5 mg/mL. Filter through a 0.22 µm PTFE membrane.
• Chromatography: Column: C18 (e.g., 2.1 x 100 mm, 1.7 µm). Mobile Phase: (A) 0.1% Formic acid in H2O; (B) 0.1% Formic acid in Acetonitrile. Gradient: 5-95% B over 15 min. Flow rate: 0.4 mL/min.
• Detection: PDA: 200-600 nm. HRMS: ESI positive/negative mode switching; mass range 100-1500 m/z; resolution >35,000.
• Data Processing: Align chromatograms, extract UV and mass features, and perform peak picking. Export feature lists (m/z, RT, intensity) for database searching.

Prioritization Based on Chemical Space Metrics

Prioritization moves beyond dereplication to rank compounds with unknown structures by their potential novelty and drug-likeness.

Table 2: Key Metrics for NP Prioritization in Chemical Space

Metric	Calculation/Description	NP Typical Range	Synthetic Typical Range	Prioritization Target
Fraction of sp3 Carbons (Fsp3)	Csp3 / Total Carbon count	0.45 - 0.65	0.20 - 0.40	Higher Fsp3 (>0.5) correlates with 3D shape and success in drug discovery.
Molecular Complexity (CIC)	Based on atom connectivity and symmetry	Higher	Lower	High complexity scores may indicate evolved bioactivity but challenge synthesis.
Global Natural Product Social (GNPS) Spectral Match Cosine Score	Similarity of MS/MS spectra to public libraries	0.0 - 1.0	N/A	Prioritize scores <0.6 for potential novelty.
Bioactivity Index	IC50 or % Inhibition / Compound Concentration	Variable	Variable	Prioritize potent, selective activity in phenotypic/target-based assays.

Experimental Protocol: Calculating Chemical Space Metrics

• Molecular Feature List Generation: Use HRMS data to generate a list of molecular formulas (with ± 5 ppm error) for all features above a defined intensity threshold.
• Structure Prediction (if possible): For top-priority m/z, use in-silico fragmentation tools (e.g., Sirius, CSI:FingerID) to predict most likely structures.
• Metric Calculation: For each predicted or known structure, calculate chemical descriptors:
  • Fsp3: Use cheminformatics toolkit (e.g., RDKit). Formula: rdkit.Chem.rdMolDescriptors.CalcFractionCsp3(mol).
  • CIC: Use RDKit or custom scripts to calculate the Bertz or Barone complexity indices.
• Multi-Parametric Ranking: Normalize scores (Fsp3, CIC, bioactivity) and apply a weighted scoring system to generate a ranked list for isolation.

Visualization of Workflows and Relationships

Title: NP Dereplication & Prioritization Funnel

Title: Chemical Space Prioritization Logic

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for NP Dereplication

Item	Function & Application
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges (C18, Diol, Mixed-Mode)	Rapid fractionation of crude extracts to reduce complexity prior to LC-MS analysis.
LC-MS Grade Solvents (MeCN, MeOH, H2O with 0.1% FA or FA)	Essential for high-sensitivity HRMS to minimize ion suppression and background noise.
Deuterated NMR Solvents (e.g., DMSO-d6, CD3OD, CDCl3)	For structure elucidation; choice depends on compound solubility.
Sephadex LH-20	Size-exclusion chromatography medium for gentle desalting and fractionation of polar NPs.
96-Well Microtiter Plates (Polypropylene)	For high-throughput bioassay screening of fractions and pure compounds.
Internal Standard Mix for HRMS Calibration (e.g., ESI-L Low Concentration Tuning Mix)	Ensures mass accuracy and reproducibility during HRMS data acquisition.
In-silico Database Access (GNPS, NP Atlas, AntiBase, Dictionary of NP)	Spectral and structural databases for virtual screening and dereplication.
Cheminformatics Software (e.g., MZmine 3, RDKit, OpenBabel)	For processing LC-MS data, calculating molecular descriptors, and managing chemical data.

The design of compound libraries for high-throughput screening (HTS) represents a foundational challenge in modern drug discovery. The efficacy of these campaigns is intrinsically linked to the quality of the screening collection, which serves as the primary interface between biological targets and potential therapeutic agents [63]. This challenge is framed within the broader chemical universe, which can be conceptually divided into two major regions: the biologically pre-validated, structurally complex space of natural products (NPs) and the synthetically accessible, more planar region of synthetic compounds (SCs).

Historical analysis reveals that approximately half of all new drug approvals between 1981 and 2010 trace their structural origins to a natural product [9]. Despite this, a significant shift occurred in the late 20th century as the pharmaceutical industry moved towards combinatorial chemistry and HTS, favoring synthetic libraries that promised greater tractability and scalability [8]. However, this shift did not yield the anticipated increase in new molecular entities, partly due to the limited structural diversity and biological relevance of many synthetic libraries [9] [8]. NPs, honed by evolution to interact with biological macromolecules, exhibit greater three-dimensional complexity, higher sp3 carbon fraction (Fsp3), more stereocenters, and lower hydrophobicity compared to their synthetic counterparts [9]. These features allow them to occupy a broader and more diverse region of chemical space and engage with a wider range of biological targets [9].

Contemporary library design, therefore, seeks a synthesis of these two worlds. The goal is to create optimized screening collections that capture the biological relevance and structural diversity of natural products while maintaining the synthetic tractability and drug-like physicochemical properties characteristic of successful synthetic drugs [64] [63]. This technical guide outlines the principles, methodologies, and practical strategies for achieving this balance, providing a roadmap for constructing screening libraries capable of delivering high-quality hits for tomorrow's therapeutics.

Foundational Principles for Library Design

The construction of a high-quality screening library is guided by three interdependent pillars: Diversity, Relevance, and Tractability. A strategic focus on these areas ensures the library is not merely a large collection of chemicals, but a refined tool for efficient biological discovery.

• Diversity: This principle moves beyond simple numerical count to encompass structural, scaffold, and property-based variety. The aim is to maximize the coverage of biologically relevant chemical space to increase the probability of encountering novel hits, especially for challenging or novel targets. True diversity involves incorporating under-represented chemotypes, such as spirocyclic and macrocyclic systems, to escape "molecular flatland" [64]. Comparative studies show that NPs and their derivatives inherently possess greater scaffold diversity than typical synthetic libraries [9] [8].

• Relevance: This ensures library compounds have a heightened potential for meaningful interaction with biological systems. Relevance is engineered through the conscious inclusion of NP-inspired scaffolds and fragments, as these structures are evolutionarily pre-validated [65]. It is also enforced by applying filters based on medicinal chemistry knowledge—such as adherence to defined ranges for molecular weight, lipophilicity (cLogP/LogD), polar surface area, and the number of hydrogen bond donors/acceptors—and by rigorously removing compounds with undesirable chemical functionalities (e.g., PAINS) [63].

• Tractability: A potent hit is of little value if it cannot be rapidly re-synthesized or optimized. Tractability ensures that library compounds are built from readily available, high-quality building blocks and feature robust, scalable syntheses [64]. This principle guarantees that promising hits can be quickly confirmed, resupplied, and developed into structure-activity relationship (SAR) series without encountering insurmountable synthetic hurdles early in the campaign.

The integration of these principles is exemplified in modern library design strategies. For instance, the SymeGold library is built on six explicit design criteria: novelty, chemical tractability, structural integrity, appropriate physicochemical properties, innovation, and diversification potential [64]. Similarly, the strategy for a large academic library emphasized initial diversity guided by rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five, followed by continuous enhancement with focused, fragment, and bioactive sets [63].

Cheminformatic Analysis for Library Evaluation and Enhancement

A data-driven, cheminformatic assessment is critical for evaluating an existing collection and guiding its expansion. This involves calculating key molecular descriptors, analyzing property distributions, and mapping the library's position within broader chemical space.

Core Physicochemical Property Analysis

A standard set of descriptors should be calculated for every compound in the library. These parameters help quantify diversity, assess drug-likeness, and compare subsets. Based on comparative studies of NPs and SCs, the following descriptors are essential [9] [63]:

Table 1: Key Molecular Descriptors for Library Analysis

Descriptor	Description	Typical "Drug-like" Range	Significance in NP vs. SC Comparison
Molecular Weight (MW)	Mass of the molecule.	200 - 500 Da	NPs are generally larger; SCs are constrained by synthesis and rules [9] [8].
cLogP / LogD (pH 7.4)	Measures lipophilicity.	< 5	NPs and NP-derived drugs show lower hydrophobicity [9].
Fraction sp3 (Fsp3)	sp3 carbon count / total carbon count.	> 0.25	NPs have higher Fsp3 (more 3D complexity) [9].
Number of Stereocenters	Count of chiral centers.	N/A	NPs possess significantly more stereocenters [9].
Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA)	Predicts membrane permeability.	< 140 Ų	NPs often have higher TPSA due to more oxygen atoms [9].
Number of Aromatic Rings	Count of aromatic rings.	N/A	SCs have a higher count; NPs are richer in aliphatic and saturated rings [9] [8].
Number of Hydrogen Bond Donors (HBD) / Acceptors (HBA)	Count of donor (e.g., OH, NH) and acceptor (e.g., O, N) atoms.	HBD ≤ 5, HBA ≤ 10	Important for oral bioavailability rules [9].
Number of Rotatable Bonds	Count of flexible, single bonds.	≤ 10	Correlates with oral bioavailability [9].

Experimental Protocol: Library QC and Subset Analysis

The following protocol, adapted from an academic library evaluation, provides a methodology for assessing library integrity and composition [63].

Objective: To evaluate the purity and identity of stored compounds and analyze the physicochemical property distribution of library subsets.

Procedure:

• Sample Selection:
  • Select a statistically representative subset of compounds (e.g., 500-1000) from the main repository.
  • Include compounds from different acquisition batches and storage formats (e.g., 96-well master plates and 384-well assay plates).

• Quality Control (QC) Analysis:

  • Analyze samples via Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) with dual detection (e.g., UV and evaporative light scattering).
  • Determine purity as the average from both detection methods.
  • Confirm compound identity by matching the observed mass to the expected molecular weight.

• Data Processing:

  • Calculate the percentage of compounds meeting purity thresholds (e.g., >90%, 80-90%).
  • Investigate correlations between purity and storage time or physicochemical properties (e.g., MW, clogP).

• Physicochemical Property Analysis:

  • For the entire library and predefined subsets (e.g., Diversity, Bioactives, Focused, Fragments), calculate the descriptors listed in Table 1.
  • Generate radar plots or box plots to visualize property distributions across subsets.
  • Perform multivariate analysis, such as Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), to visualize and quantify the separation between different library subsets in chemical space [63].

Expected Outcome: A comprehensive report detailing QC pass rates, identifying any stability issues, and providing a map of the chemical space occupied by different parts of the collection. This analysis reveals gaps (e.g., lack of high Fsp3 compounds) and opportunities for targeted library enhancement.

Strategic Approaches to Integration of NP-like Features

To harness the value of NPs while mitigating challenges associated with their complexity and supply, several strategic design approaches have been developed.

Pseudo-Natural Products (PsNPs): This approach involves the synthesis of novel scaffolds by combining two or more NP-derived fragments in arrangements not found in nature [8]. The resulting compounds inherit biological relevance from their NP precursors but explore new regions of chemical space. Libraries like SymeGold incorporate thousands of such PsNPs [64].

Scaffold Diversification from NP Motifs: Starting from a core NP scaffold, medicinal chemistry is used to generate synthetic analogs that probe structure-activity relationships while improving synthetic accessibility and physicochemical properties. This is a core strategy of libraries such as AnalytiCon's 25k Diversity Set, which contains synthetic compounds based on natural product motifs [65].

Macrocyclic and Spirocyclic Compounds: These under-represented chemotypes are hallmarks of NP complexity and are prized for their ability to target challenging protein-protein interactions. Dedicated sub-libraries, such as the SymeCycle macrocyclic collection, are curated to enrich screening decks with these high-value scaffolds [64].

Table 2: Case Studies in NP-Inspired Library Design

Library / Strategy	Source	Key Design Feature	Size & Composition	Goal
SymeGold Library [64]	Symeres	Integration of novel chemotypes (spirocyclic, PsNPs, macrocyclic) with strict tractability filters.	~78,000 compounds. Includes 27k spirocyclic, 4k PsNPs, 1.9k macrocyclics.	Provide structurally distinctive, lead-like hits beyond "flatland" chemistry.
AnalytiCon 25k Diversity Set [65]	AnalytiCon Discovery	Direct derivation from natural product isolates and motifs.	25,000 compounds. Includes 3.5k pure NPs, 3k macrocycles, 18.5k synthetic NP-motif-based compounds.	Leverage natural product diversity with medicinal chemistry tractability.
Academic Library Enhancement [63]	St. Jude Children's Research Hospital	Continuous evaluation and targeted acquisition to fill chemical space gaps identified via cheminformatics.	~575,000 compounds, subdivided into Diversity, Bioactives, Focused, and Fragment subsets.	Build a next-generation, general-purpose screening collection for probe and drug discovery.

The workflow for designing a library that balances NP-inspired diversity with synthetic tractability can be visualized as a cyclical process of design, analysis, and refinement.

Library Design and Enhancement Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Constructing and maintaining a high-quality screening library requires specific tools and materials to ensure integrity from procurement to assay.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Screening Library Management

Item / Category	Function / Description	Key Considerations
Automated Compound Storage System (e.g., Brooks Life Sciences) [63]	Manages long-term storage of compound solutions in 96- or 384-well tubes at -20°C or -80°C. Enables precise cherry-picking.	System reliability, temperature stability, capacity for millions of samples, integration with laboratory information management systems (LIMS).
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO), Anhydrous	Universal solvent for dissolving and storing small-molecule libraries.	High purity, low water content (<0.1%) is critical to prevent compound hydrolysis and precipitation during long-term storage.
LC-MS System with Dual Detection (UV & Evaporative Light Scattering) [63]	Performs quality control (QC) on library compounds to verify purity and identity.	Required for initial QC of purchased compounds and periodic stability checks of the master library.
Filtering Software & Alert Databases (e.g., PAINS, Lilly MedChem Rules) [63]	Flags compounds with reactive, promiscuous, or undesirable chemical moieties during library design and curation.	Customization of filter rules is often necessary to align with specific project goals (e.g., allowing certain halogenated aromatics for SAR).
Cheminformatics Software (e.g., Pipeline Pilot, RDKit) [63]	Calculates molecular descriptors, performs diversity analysis, and visualizes chemical space.	Essential for data-driven library design, subset selection, and analysis of screening results.
Key Building Block Collection [64]	A curated set of high-quality, readily available chemical intermediates used to synthesize the library.	Ensures rapid resynthesis and analog production (SAR expansion) for any hit originating from the library.

Case Studies & Future Outlook

The practical application of these principles is evident in successful library initiatives. The SymeGold library demonstrates how explicit design goals—novelty, tractability, and the inclusion of spirocyclic and pseudo-natural product chemotypes—can create a distinctive screening asset [64]. In academia, the large-scale, cheminformatics-driven evaluation and evolution of the St. Jude compound collection showcases a model for maintaining relevance through continuous, data-informed enhancement [63].

The future of library design will be increasingly shaped by virtual screening and ultra-large libraries. Quantitative models of docking performance suggest that while library size is important, the intrinsic "hit-rate" of the virtual library and scoring function accuracy are paramount [66]. This underscores the value of pre-filtering libraries for biological relevance (e.g., NP-like properties) even before virtual screening begins. Furthermore, time-dependent analyses indicate that while synthetic compounds have evolved, they have not fully converged with the structural characteristics of NPs, which themselves have grown larger and more complex over time [8]. This persistent and expanding gap highlights a continuing opportunity for library design: the strategic, human-guided evolution of synthetic compounds towards NP-like chemical space to unlock novel biology.

The chemical space relationship between natural products and synthetic compounds, and the ideal positioning of an optimized screening library, can be conceptualized as follows.

Chemical Space Bridge: NPs, SCs, and the Ideal Library

The chemical space occupied by natural products (NPs) and synthetic compounds (SCs) is not only vast but also fundamentally divergent. A seminal, time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis reveals that NPs have evolved to become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over decades, exhibiting increased structural diversity and uniqueness. In contrast, the structural evolution of SCs, while dynamic, is constrained within a narrower range governed by synthetic accessibility and traditional "drug-like" rules [8]. This divergence has profound implications for drug discovery. Despite NPs being the inspiration for approximately half of all approved small-molecule drugs, their complex scaffolds are severely underrepresented in commercial screening libraries [9]. This creates a critical data gap: the unique and biologically relevant chemical intelligence encoded in NPs is not captured in sufficient quality or scale within the databases used to train the next generation of AI-driven discovery tools.

Bridging this gap requires a concerted effort to curate high-quality, annotated NP databases. This whitepaper details the technical roadmap for constructing such resources, framing the endeavor as essential for expanding the explorable chemical universe for AI. By systematically capturing the structural complexity, biosynthetic logic, and bioactivity of NPs, we can build the datasets necessary to train models that do not merely mimic historical compound design but learn from nature's own optimized solutions to molecular interaction.

Quantitative Landscape: Comparing NP and SC Chemical Space

A clear understanding of the structural chasm between NPs and SCs is foundational. The following tables summarize key physicochemical and structural differences, highlighting the unique characteristics of NPs that databases must faithfully represent.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Evolving Physicochemical Properties (NPs vs. SCs) [8]

Property Category	Natural Products (NPs) Trend Over Time	Synthetic Compounds (SCs) Trend Over Time	Key Implication for AI Training
Molecular Size (Weight, Volume, Heavy Atoms)	Consistent increase; modern NPs are significantly larger.	Variation within a limited, "drug-like" range.	NP databases must contain high molecular weight examples to model beyond Rule-of-5 space.
Ring Systems	Increase in total rings & non-aromatic rings; more complex fused systems.	Increase in aromatic rings; prevalence of stable 5/6-membered rings.	Datasets must encode stereochemistry and 3D shape from aliphatic, complex cores.
Hydrophobicity & Polarity	Increasing hydrophobicity over time.	Governed by design rules for solubility & permeability.	Models need data on bioactive yet hydrophobic scaffolds.
Stereochemical Complexity	High and increasing (implied by structural complexity).	Generally lower.	Stereochemical annotations are non-optional for accurate bioactivity prediction.
Functional Groups & Substituents	Rich in oxygen, ethylene-derived groups; fewer nitrogen atoms [8].	Rich in nitrogen, sulfur, halogens, and aromatic rings [8].	Annotation must capture these distinct chemical fingerprints.

Table 2: Cheminformatic Parameters Differentiating Drug Origins (1981-2010) [9]

Parameter	Natural Product-Derived Drugs (NP, ND, S*)	Completely Synthetic Drugs (S)	Significance for Database Annotation
Fraction sp3 (Fsp3)	Higher	Lower	Critical descriptor of 3D shape; must be calculated and stored.
Stereocenter Count	Higher	Lower	Mandatory annotation for all chiral compounds.
Aromatic Ring Count	Lower	Higher	Helps AI distinguish NP-like from synthetic-like scaffolds.
Molecular Weight	Generally larger	Generally smaller	Reinforces the need to include larger molecules in datasets.
Hydrogen Bond Donors/Acceptors	Distinct profile	Distinct profile	Key for predicting target engagement and bioavailability.

Core Protocols for Curating and Annotating NP Databases

The creation of a high-quality NP database is a multi-step computational and experimental pipeline. Below are detailed protocols for its core components.

Protocol: Foundational Data Aggregation and Standardization

This protocol establishes the initial, quality-controlled dataset from public and proprietary sources.

• Objective: To create a unified, non-redundant, and structurally valid set of NP structures.
• Materials: Source databases (e.g., COCONUT, Dictionary of Natural Products), cheminformatics toolkit (e.g., RDKit, Open Babel), high-performance computing cluster.
• Method:
  • Data Acquisition: Programmatically download or license NP structure files (SDF, SMILES) from all available sources.
  • De-duplication: Generate canonical SMILES or InChI keys for all structures. Remove exact duplicates and canonicalize tautomeric forms [67].
  • Structural Validation & Sanitization: Employ a pipeline like the ChEMBL chemical curation pipeline [67] to:
    • Check for valency errors and impossible stereochemistry.
    • Remove structures with severe issues (e.g., metal atoms not commonly in pharmaceuticals, incorrect bonding).
    • Standardize functional groups according to IUPAC/FDA guidelines (e.g., normalize nitro groups, deprotonate carboxylates).
    • Generate "parent" structures by stripping salts, solvents, and isotopes [67].
  • Property Calculation: Compute a standardized set of molecular descriptors (see Table 2) for all entries using a toolkit like RDKit. Store results in a searchable field.

Protocol: Annotation with Biosynthetic Pathway and Biological Context

This protocol enriches raw structural data with the biological intelligence crucial for AI models.

• Objective: To label NPs with their biosynthetic origin, source organism taxonomy, and reported biological activities.
• Materials: Scientific literature corpus, NLP tools, bioinformatics databases (NCBI Taxonomy, UniProt), classification tools (NPClassifier) [67].
• Method:
  • Biosynthetic Classification: Process canonical SMILES through a deep learning tool like NPClassifier to assign probable biosynthetic pathway classes (e.g., polyketide, terpenoid, alkaloid) [67].
  • Taxonomic Annotation: Mine source metadata to assign a standardized taxonomic lineage (Kingdom, Phylum, Species) to each NP using the NCBI taxonomy database.
  • Bioactivity Mining:
    • Link NPs to PubMed IDs via database cross-references.
    • Use named entity recognition (NER) models trained on biological literature to extract target organisms, protein targets, assay results (e.g., IC50, MIC), and disease associations from abstracts and full texts.
    • Standardize extracted activity data to common units and store with reference to the original literature.

Protocol: Generative Expansion of NP-Like Chemical Space

This protocol leverages AI to responsibly expand beyond the limited set of known NPs, creating a virtual library for ultra-high-throughput in silico screening.

• Objective: To generate a vast, novel, but NP-like virtual chemical library.
• Materials: Curated NP database (from Protocol 3.1), deep learning framework (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow), GPU computing resources.
• Method:
  • Model Training: Train a recurrent neural network (RNN) with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) units on the canonical SMILES strings of known NPs. The model learns the statistical "language" and structural patterns of NPs [67].
  • Sampling and Generation: Use the trained model to generate millions of novel SMILES strings through iterative sampling.
  • Validation and Filtering:
    • Validity Filter: Use RDKit's Chem.MolFromSmiles() to discard syntactically invalid SMILES (typically <10%) [67].
    • Uniqueness Filter: Remove duplicates by comparing canonical SMILES.
    • Natural Product-Likeness Filter: Calculate an NP-likeness score (e.g., using a tool like NP Score) for each generated molecule. Filter or rank compounds based on their similarity to the known NP chemical space [67].
  • Descriptor Calculation & Storage: Calculate the same standardized molecular descriptor set (as in Protocol 3.1, Step 4) for all generated compounds and store in a queryable database format.

Diagram: High-Level Workflow for Building an Annotated NP Database. The process integrates classical data curation with AI-driven generation.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for NP Database Curation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function in Database Curation
RDKit	Cheminformatics Software	Core library for chemical informatics: structure validation, canonicalization, descriptor calculation, and fingerprint generation [67].
ChEMBL Curation Pipeline	Standardization Protocol	Validates and standardizes chemical structures to consistent rules, removes salts/solvents, and flags errors [67].
NPClassifier	Deep Learning Classifier	Automatically assigns biosynthetic class (e.g., alkaloid, polyketide) to NP structures based on molecular features [67].
COCONUT / DNP	Primary NP Databases	Foundational sources of NP structures, often with associated source organism and rudimentary activity data [68] [67].
NCBI Taxonomy Database	Biological Reference	Provides a standardized hierarchy for annotating the biological source (e.g., genus, species) of each NP.
LSTM/RNN Models (PyTorch/TF)	AI/ML Framework	Architecture for training generative models on SMILES strings to create novel, NP-like virtual compounds [67].
NP-Score	Scoring Function	Quantifies how "natural product-like" a molecule is based on substructure fragments, used to filter AI-generated libraries [67].

The structural and biological gulf between the natural and synthetic worlds of chemistry is both a challenge and an unparalleled opportunity. The systematic curation of high-quality, annotated NP databases, as outlined in this guide, is the essential first step in converting nature's chemical genius into a machine-readable format. By integrating rigorous cheminformatic standardization, deep biological annotation, and cutting-edge generative AI, we can construct resources that do more than catalog—they illuminate and expand the frontier of NP chemical space.

These databases will become the training ground for the next generation of AI models capable of predicting NP bioactivity, designing novel NP-inspired scaffolds, and navigating the unexplored regions of chemical space that lie between natural complexity and synthetic feasibility. Ultimately, bridging this data gap is not an informatics exercise; it is a strategic imperative to harness the full potential of natural products for discovering the transformative therapeutics of the future.

Evidence and Impact: Comparative Analysis of Bioactivity and Drug Success

The concept of "chemical space"—a multidimensional universe where each molecule occupies a position defined by its structural and physicochemical properties—is central to modern cheminformatics and drug discovery [2]. Within this vast theoretical space, estimated to exceed 10⁶⁰ small organic molecules, lies a critical region known as the biologically relevant chemical space (BioReCS) [3]. BioReCS encompasses molecules with inherent biological activity, a region where natural products (NPs) have evolved through millennia of biological selection [3].

This analysis addresses a core thesis in medicinal chemistry: whether NPs inherently occupy a more diverse and biologically relevant region of chemical space compared to synthetic compounds (SCs). While combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening have enabled the synthesis of hundreds of millions of SCs, drug discovery pipelines have not seen proportional gains in new molecular entities, suggesting a potential deficiency in the biological relevance of purely synthetic libraries [8]. NPs, in contrast, are evolutionarily pre-validated to interact with biological macromolecules, with approximately 68% of approved small-molecule drugs from 1981-2019 tracing their origins to NPs [8]. However, "diversity" and "relevance" are quantitative claims requiring rigorous statistical validation. Recent time-evolution analyses reveal that NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, expanding into unique structural territories. SCs, while vastly more numerous, show constrained evolution largely governed by synthetic accessibility and drug-like rules such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [8]. This article provides an in-depth statistical and methodological examination of this thesis, presenting quantitative comparisons, detailing the experimental and computational protocols that generate the evidence, and exploring emerging strategies designed to bridge these two worlds.

Core Analytical Methodologies for Chemical Space Comparison

Quantifying and comparing chemical space requires robust computational methodologies to handle large datasets and define meaningful metrics for diversity and relevance.

Computational Metrics for Diversity and Relevance

• Molecular Descriptors and Fingerprints: Molecules are represented numerically using descriptors (e.g., molecular weight, logP) or fingerprints (binary vectors encoding structural features). The choice significantly impacts the perceived chemical space [2]. For broader relevance, descriptors like MAP4 fingerprint are designed to cover diverse compound classes [3].
• Intrinsic Similarity (iSIM) Framework: Traditional pairwise similarity comparisons scale quadratically (O(N²)), becoming infeasible for large libraries. The iSIM framework overcomes this by calculating the average Tanimoto similarity for an entire set in linear time (O(N)), providing a global internal diversity metric (lower iT value indicates greater diversity) [2].
• Complementary Similarity and Jaccard Index: To analyze spatial evolution, the iSIM of a set is calculated after removing a molecule. A low complementary similarity identifies central "medoid" molecules, while a high value identifies peripheral "outliers." The Jaccard Index (J) then quantifies the overlap between medoid or outlier regions of a library across different time releases [2].
• Clustering with BitBIRCH: For granular analysis, the BitBIRCH algorithm clusters millions of compounds efficiently. Inspired by BIRCH, it uses a tree structure and the iSIM framework to group molecules, enabling the tracking of new cluster formation over time [2].

Computational Workflow for Chemical Space Analysis [2]

Defining and Assessing Biological Relevance

Biological relevance (BioReCS) is assessed through alternative strategies:

• Direct Bioactivity Annotation: Using databases like ChEMBL and PubChem which contain experimental bioactivity measurements [3].
• Natural Product-Likeness (NP Score): A Bayesian model that calculates the probability of a molecule being NP-derived based on atom-centered fragments [67].
• Biosynthetic Pathway Classification: Tools like NPClassifier assign molecules to biosynthetic pathways (e.g., polyketide, terpenoid), linking structure to biologically relevant origins [67].

Quantitative Comparison: NPs vs. SCs

The following tables summarize key statistical findings from comparative chemoinformatic analyses.

Table 1: Comparative Physicochemical and Structural Properties [8]

Property Category	Metric	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Interpretation
Molecular Size	Mean Molecular Weight	Larger, increasing over time	Smaller, constrained within range	NPs are structurally larger and expanding.
	Mean Heavy Atom Count	Higher	Lower	SCs adhere more to drug-like "Rule of 5" limits.
Ring Systems	Mean Number of Rings	Higher	Lower	NPs possess more fused and bridged ring systems.
	Aromatic vs. Aliphatic	Predominantly non-aromatic	More aromatic rings	SCs heavily utilize simple aromatic building blocks.
	Ring Assemblies	Fewer	More	NP rings are more complex and fused.
Complexity & Saturation	Fraction of sp³ Carbons (Fsp³)	Higher (>0.5 common)	Lower	NPs are more three-dimensional and complex [69].
	Chiral Centers	More common	Less common	NPs exhibit greater stereochemical diversity.
Functional Groups	Oxygen-containing groups	More prevalent	Less prevalent	Reflects biosynthetic pathways.
	Nitrogen, Halogens, Sulfur	Less prevalent	More prevalent	Reflects common synthetic chemistries.

Table 2: Diversity and Biological Relevance Metrics [2] [8] [67]

Metric	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Implication
Chemical Diversity (iSIM)	Lower average intrinsic similarity (iT) in NP subsets [2].	Higher average iT in large SC libraries [2].	NPs occupy a more diverse region per molecule.
Library Scale	~0.4-1.1 million known [8] [67].	Hundreds of millions to billions (e.g., SAVI, Enamine REAL) [8] [62].	SCs explore vast, synthetically accessible space.
Biological Relevance	High. Inherently bio-predisposed. NP Score distributions are a benchmark [67].	Variable. Can be low in generic libraries; targeted design improves it.	NPs occupy a more relevant subspace (BioReCS).
Temporal Evolution	Continuous expansion into new, complex, hydrophobic space [8].	Property shifts constrained by synthetic and drug-like rules [8].	NP chemical space is evolving differently.
Coverage of BioReCS	Cover dense, biologically pre-validated regions.	Cover broader, sparser areas; may miss biologically relevant "islands".	NPs are efficient probes of BioReCS.

Experimental Protocol for NP-Inspired Compound Design

The synthesis of Pseudo-Natural Products (PNPs) exemplifies an experimental strategy to merge NP-like relevance with novel diversity [70]. The following protocol details a published divergent synthesis.

Title: Divergent Synthesis of Spiroindolylindanone PNPs via Indole Dearomatization [70]

Objective: To synthesize a library of diverse PNP scaffolds from a common indole-derived intermediate via palladium-catalyzed dearomatization and subsequent diversification.

Materials:

• Starting Materials: Substituted indole derivatives (e.g., 1a, R¹ = Me, R²⁻⁶ = H) with a C3-tethered aryl bromide electrophile.
• Catalyst System: Palladium acetate (Pd(OAc)₂), Xantphos ligand (4,5-Bis(diphenylphosphino)-9,9-dimethylxanthene).
• CO Source: N-Formyl saccharin (2a) as a safe, in-situ CO surrogate.
• Base: Sodium carbonate (Na₂CO₃).
• Solvent: Anhydrous N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF).
• Reducing Agent: Hantzsch ester for subsequent indolenine reduction.

Procedure:

• Dearomatization & Carbonylation: In a flame-dried Schlenk tube under inert atmosphere, combine indole substrate 1a (1.0 equiv), Pd(OAc)₂ (5 mol%), Xantphos (10 mol%), and Na₂CO₃ (2.0 equiv) in anhydrous DMF. Add N-formyl saccharin (2a, 1.5 equiv). Heat the reaction mixture to 100°C and monitor by TLC/LC-MS. The reaction typically completes within 12-16 hours, yielding the spirocyclic spiroindolylindanone (Class A).
• Work-up: After cooling, dilute the mixture with ethyl acetate and wash with water and brine. Dry the organic layer over anhydrous Na₂SO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purification: Purify the crude product via flash chromatography on silica gel to obtain the dearomatized product A1.
• Divergent Diversification:
  • Path B (Reduction): Dissolve compound A1 in dichloromethane. Add Hantzsch ester (1.5 equiv) and a catalytic amount of pyridinium p-toluenesulfonate (PPTS). Stir at room temperature to obtain spiro-indoline–indanone (Class B).
  • Path C (Functionalization): Treat Class B compounds with acyl chlorides or sulfonyl chlorides in the presence of a base to functionalize the free amine, yielding Class C.
  • Path E (Annulation): Subject Class A compounds to a further palladium-catalyzed coupling with methyl 2-bromobenzoate to fuse an isoquinolinone ring, creating the complex indoline–indanone–isoquinolinone (Class E) scaffold.

Characterization: Characterize all final compounds by ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). Determine stereochemistry by X-ray crystallography where possible (e.g., compound B10).

Divergent Synthetic Workflow for Pseudo-Natural Products [70]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents for NP and PNP Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Application Context
N-Formyl Saccharin	Safe, solid CO surrogate for carbonylation reactions.	Dearomatization synthesis of PNPs [70].
Hantzsch Ester	Mild, selective hydride donor for reduction reactions.	Reducing indolenine to indoline in PNPs [70].
Palladium/Xantphos Catalyst System	Catalyzes cross-coupling and carbonylation reactions.	Key for forming core spirocyclic scaffold in PNPs [70].
ChEMBL / PubChem Database	Curated source of bioactivity data for small molecules.	Defining and analyzing BioReCS [2] [3].
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit.	Fingerprint generation, descriptor calculation, molecule standardization [67].
NP Score	Bayesian model to predict natural product-likeness.	Quantifying biological relevance of novel molecules [67].
Enamine Building Blocks	Commercially available chemical reactants.	Generating synthetically accessible virtual libraries (e.g., SAVI Space) [62].
LHASA Transform Rules	Set of expert-curated chemical reaction rules.	Encoding synthetic feasibility in virtual chemical spaces [62].

Discussion & Future Directions: Integrating Worlds with AI

The data supports the thesis: NPs do occupy a distinct, diverse, and biologically relevant region of chemical space. Their structural complexity and evolutionary optimization provide unmatched efficiency in exploring BioReCS. SC libraries, while enormous, risk being sparse in biologically meaningful regions.

The future lies in integrating these strengths. Generative AI models are pivotal in this integration:

• Expanding NP-like Space: Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) trained on NP SMILES strings can generate vast virtual libraries (>67 million molecules) that maintain NP-like characteristics while exploring novel regions, significantly expanding accessible BioReCS [67].
• Designing Synthetically Accessible PNPs: Chemical fragment spaces like SAVI-Space-2024 use reaction rules and building blocks to encode billions of synthetically tractable molecules efficiently. This allows for the virtual screening of vast areas of synthetically accessible chemical space that can be biased towards NP-like features [62].
• Target-Driven Optimization: AI models like DeepFrag, FREED++, and TACOGFN use protein structural data to guide the generation or modification of molecules (including NP scaffolds) for enhanced binding affinity and specificity, directly bridging chemical space with biological function [71].

These approaches move beyond simple comparison towards a synergistic model: using NP structures as inspiration and biological validation, generative AI as an engine for novel design, and synthetic chemistry frameworks (like PNPs and fragment spaces) as the blueprint for practical realization. This convergence aims to systematically explore the most promising intersection of diversity and relevance, offering a powerful new paradigm for drug discovery.

1. Introduction: Chemical Space as a Framework for Drug Discovery The exploration of chemical space—the multidimensional descriptor of all possible molecular structures—reveals a fundamental dichotomy between natural products (NPs) and synthetic compounds (SCs). NPs, evolved through millennia of biological selection to interact with specific biomacromolecules, occupy distinct and privileged regions of this space, characterized by greater three-dimensionality, stereochemical complexity, and structural diversity [9] [8]. This inherent bio-relevance translates directly into a disproportionate success rate in drug discovery. Analyses consistently show that approximately half to two-thirds of all new small-molecule chemical entities approved as drugs between 1981 and 2019 are directly derived from, inspired by, or mimic a natural product pharmacophore [9] [8] [72]. This persistent contribution persists despite significant fluctuations in pharmaceutical industry focus and the rise of combinatorial chemistry, underscoring that NP-derived structures provide unique and indispensable vectors into biologically meaningful chemical space that purely synthetic libraries often fail to interrogate [9] [8].

2. Quantitative Evidence: Structural Advantages of NP-Derived Drugs A comparative cheminformatic analysis of drugs approved from 1981–2010, categorized by origin (Natural Product (NP), Natural Product-Derived (ND), Synthetic/Natural Product Pharmacophore (S*), and Purely Synthetic (S)), reveals clear structural and property differences that define their respective chemical spaces [9].

Table 1: Structural and Physicochemical Comparison of Approved Drugs by Origin (1981-2010) [9]

Parameter	NP & ND Drugs	S* (NP-Inspired Synthetic) Drugs	Purely Synthetic (S) Drugs	Biological & Discovery Implication
Molecular Complexity	Higher	Moderate	Lower	Correlates with selective target binding and success in clinical development [9].
Fraction of sp3 Carbons (Fsp3)	Higher	Higher	Lower	Increased 3D-shape and saturation improve clinical outcomes [9].
Stereogenic Centers	More	More	Fewer	Enhances binding specificity and reflects biosynthetic origins [9] [8].
Number of Aromatic Rings	Fewer	Fewer	More	SCs are biased towards flat, aromatic scaffolds [9] [8].
Hydrophobicity	Lower	Lower	Higher	Improved solubility and pharmacokinetic profiles [9].
Oxygen Atom Count	Higher	Higher	Lower	Reflects prevalence of esters, ethers, and glycosidic bonds in NPs [8].
Nitrogen Atom Count	Lower	Lower	Higher	Common in synthetic heterocycles prevalent in SC libraries [8].

A more recent, time-dependent analysis (2024) comparing NPs from the Dictionary of Natural Products with SCs from multiple databases confirms and expands these findings [8]. It shows that while both NPs and SCs have evolved, they have diverged in chemical space. Modern NPs have become larger and more complex over time, with increasing numbers of rings and stereocenters. In contrast, SCs have seen their properties shift within a narrower, "drug-like" range, constrained by synthetic accessibility and traditional rules like Lipinski's Rule of Five [8]. Critically, the chemical space of NPs has become less concentrated and more diverse than that of SCs, which remain more clustered [8]. This demonstrates that NPs continue to explore frontier regions of chemical space that synthetic libraries do not efficiently cover.

Table 2: Time-Dependent Evolution of NP vs. SC Structural Features [8]

Feature	Trend in Natural Products (NPs)	Trend in Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Interpretation
Molecular Size & Weight	Consistent increase over time.	Variation within a constrained range.	Technology enables isolation of larger NPs; SCs are limited by synthetic and "drug-like" constraints.
Ring Systems	Increase in non-aromatic and fused rings; rise in glycosylation.	Increase in aromatic rings; stable prevalence of 5/6-membered rings.	NPs exhibit greater scaffold complexity; SCs favor synthetically accessible aromatic systems.
Stereochemical Content	Increased over time.	Remains low and stable.	Reflects the stereospecificity of biosynthetic pathways vs. non-selective synthesis.
Chemical Space Distribution	Becomes less concentrated, more diverse.	Remains more concentrated and clustered.	NPs continuously pioneer novel regions of chemical space; SC libraries exhibit high redundancy.

3. Experimental Protocol: Identifying Novel NP Variants via Mass Spectrometry The discovery of new NP variants and their biosynthetic pathways is accelerated by advanced computational mass spectrometry techniques. The following protocol details the use of the VInSMoC (Variable Interpretation of Spectrum–Molecule Couples) algorithm for the large-scale identification of molecular variants from complex microbial extracts [73].

3.1. Sample Preparation and Data Acquisition

• Culture and Extraction: Grow bacterial strains (e.g., Streptomyces bellus) under appropriate conditions to stimulate secondary metabolite production. Extract metabolites using a solvent system like ethyl acetate or methanol.
• LC-MS/MS Analysis: Subject the crude extract to Liquid Chromatography tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Use high-resolution mass spectrometers (e.g., Q-TOF, Orbitrap) to obtain accurate parent mass and fragmentation (MS2) spectra.
• Data Export: Convert raw spectral data into open formats (e.g., .mzML, .mzXML) for downstream computational analysis.

3.2. Data Processing with VInSMoC

• Spectral Library Curation: Prepare a reference library of known molecular structures in SMILES format from databases such as PubChem and COCONUT [73].
• Algorithmic Search: Input experimental MS/MS spectra into the VInSMoC web application or command-line tool. The algorithm performs two parallel searches:
  • Exact Search: Matches spectra against known library compounds.
  • Variable Search: Identifies structural variants by allowing for specific, biochemically plausible modifications (e.g., methylation, hydroxylation, glycosylation) to the core scaffold of library matches [73].
• Statistical Validation: VInSMoC assigns a statistical significance score (e.g., p-value or false discovery rate) to each spectrum-structure match to minimize false identifications [73].
• Pathway Mapping: For high-confidence variant hits (e.g., promothiocin B or depsidomycin analogs), correlate the identified modifications with biosynthetic gene cluster predictions from tools like antiSMASH to propose biosynthetic pathways [73].

4. Visualizing the Workflow and Chemical Space Evolution The following diagrams illustrate the core experimental methodology and the conceptual divergence in chemical space.

Title: VInSMoC MS/MS Database Search Workflow for NP Discovery

Title: Evolutionary Divergence of NP and Synthetic Chemical Space

5. The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents & Computational Resources Modern NP-based drug discovery relies on an integrated suite of experimental and computational tools.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Tool/Resource	Category	Function in NP Drug Discovery
GNPS (Global Natural Products Social Molecular Networking)	Spectral Database/Workflow	A public mass spectrometry data repository and ecosystem for community-wide identification of NPs via spectral networking [73].
VInSMoC Algorithm	Computational Tool	An advanced MS/MS database search algorithm that identifies both known molecules and novel structural variants, enabling hypothesis generation for biosynthesis [73].
COCONUT Database	Chemical Database	An open collection of natural products containing over 400,000 unique structures, serving as a primary reference for NP chemistry [73] [67].
Generative AI Models (e.g., NP-Focused RNN)	Computational Tool	Deep learning models trained on known NPs (e.g., from COCONUT) can generate vast virtual libraries (millions) of novel, NP-like molecules for in silico screening, dramatically expanding accessible chemical space [67].
NPClassifier	Annotation Tool	A deep learning-based tool that classifies NPs by biosynthetic pathway (e.g., polyketide, non-ribosomal peptide), providing critical context for bioactivity and engineering [67].
antiSMASH	Bioinformatics Tool	Predicts and annotates biosynthetic gene clusters from genomic data, linking chemical structures to their genetic origins and guiding pathway engineering [73].

The concept of "chemical space"—the multidimensional universe of all possible organic molecules—provides a critical framework for understanding the origins and evolution of bioactive compounds. Within this vast expanse, two major domains exist: the natural product (NP) space, shaped by biological evolution and natural selection, and the synthetic compound (SC) space, engineered by human chemists, often guided by principles of medicinal chemistry and synthetic accessibility [8]. A core thesis in modern drug discovery posits that these two subspaces are complementary but not identical; NPs possess structural novelty and biological relevance honed by evolution, while SCs offer vast numbers and tailored properties [8] [74].

However, this relationship is not static. This study performs a time-dependent analysis to investigate a pivotal question: How have the structural characteristics of NPs and SCs evolved over decades, and to what extent has the discovery of NPs influenced the synthetic landscape? While NPs have historically been a wellspring for drugs, accounting for a significant percentage of approved small-molecule therapeutics, the structural evolution of SCs in response to or in parallel with NP discovery remains unclear [8]. Recent cheminformatic analyses confirm that the overall chemical space is expanding rapidly, but they also raise the critical question of whether chemical diversity is growing at a commensurate rate [74]. This case study directly addresses that query within the NP vs. SC paradigm.

By tracking molecular properties, scaffold diversity, and chemical space occupation over time, this analysis tests the hypothesis that SC design has progressively incorporated NP-like complexity. The findings challenge this assumption, revealing instead a story of divergent evolution: NPs are becoming larger and more complex, while SC evolution is constrained by synthetic and drug-like principles, leading to a continued, and perhaps widening, structural gap between the two subspaces [8].

Materials and Methods for Time-Dependent Chemoinformatic Analysis

Compound Datasets and Chronological Curation

The analysis was built on two meticulously curated datasets to ensure a fair temporal comparison [8].

• Natural Products (NPs): 186,210 unique compounds were sourced from the Dictionary of Natural Products. Each compound was assigned a timestamp based on its first reporting date or associated literature.
• Synthetic Compounds (SCs): An equal number of 186,210 compounds were assembled from 12 complementary synthetic compound databases. Chronological ordering was achieved using CAS Registry Numbers as a proxy for synthesis or reporting date.

To enable time-series analysis, both datasets were sorted chronologically and partitioned into 37 sequential groups of 5,000 compounds each. The remaining molecules were excluded to maintain uniform group sizes. This grouping allowed for the tracking of trends from early discoveries to more recent ones [8].

Computational and Analytical Workflow

A comprehensive suite of cheminformatic descriptors was calculated for every molecule to capture structural and physicochemical nuances [8].

• Property Calculation: Thirty-nine key molecular descriptors were computed, encompassing size (e.g., molecular weight, volume), lipophilicity (e.g., LogP), polarity (e.g., topological polar surface area), and ring systems (e.g., counts of aromatic/non-aromatic rings).
• Structural Deconstruction: Molecules were fragmented into standardized components to analyze diversity:
  • Bemis-Murcko Scaffolds: Generated to represent core ring systems with linkers.
  • Ring Assemblies: Identified as isolated or fused ring systems.
  • RECAP Fragments: Derived using the Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure to identify biologically relevant, synthetically accessible building blocks.
• Chemical Space Mapping: The high-dimensional data was visualized using:
  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA): For linear dimensionality reduction and projection.
  • Tree MAP (TMAP): A hierarchical, visual clustering method based on the Faerun algorithm for intuitive exploration of large datasets.
  • SAR Map: To visualize local structure-activity relationships and scaffold hopping.
• Biological Relevance Assessment: Scaffolds and fragments were compared against known bioactive compounds in major drug databases to estimate their potential for biological interaction.

Table 1: Core Datasets for Time-Dependent Analysis

Dataset	Source	Number of Compounds	Time-Proxy Metric	Grouping Strategy
Natural Products (NPs)	Dictionary of Natural Products	186,210	First reporting date / Literature	37 groups of 5,000 compounds
Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	12 merged synthetic databases	186,210	CAS Registry Number	37 groups of 5,000 compounds

Diagram 1: Chemoinformatic Analysis Workflow

Results: Divergent Evolutionary Paths in Structural Space

Evolving Physicochemical Properties

A clear divergence in the temporal trajectory of molecular properties between NPs and SCs was observed [8].

• Molecular Size: NPs exhibited a consistent, significant increase in properties related to size over time, including molecular weight, volume, surface area, and number of heavy atoms. In contrast, the average size of SCs remained relatively stable, fluctuating within a narrow range constrained by synthetic practicality and "drug-like" rules such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [8].
• Ring Systems: The complexity of NP ring systems grew over time, with increases in the total number of rings, non-aromatic rings, and ring assemblies (indicative of fused, bridged, or spiro systems). Notably, the glycosylation ratio and the average number of sugar moieties in glycosides also rose. For SCs, the number of aromatic rings showed a marked increase, while non-aromatic ring counts remained flat, reflecting a synthetic preference for aromatic starting materials [8].
• Lipophilicity and Polarity: NPs trended towards greater lipophilicity (higher LogP) over time. SCs maintained a more consistent, moderately lipophilic profile. The topological polar surface area (TPSA) of NPs decreased, suggesting newer NPs have fewer polar groups, while SC TPSA showed minimal change [8].

Table 2: Temporal Trends in Key Physicochemical Properties

Property	Trend in Natural Products (NPs)	Trend in Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Interpretation
Molecular Weight	Significant, consistent increase over time.	Stable, with minor fluctuations within a limited range.	NPs are getting larger; SCs are constrained by drug-like rules [8].
Number of Aromatic Rings	Minimal change.	Clear increase over time.	Synthetic chemistry heavily utilizes aromatic building blocks [8].
Number of Non-Aromatic Rings	Steady increase.	Stable or very slight increase.	NP complexity grows via aliphatic and saturated ring systems [8].
LogP (Lipophilicity)	Increases over time.	Relatively stable, with moderate values.	Newer NPs are more hydrophobic [8].
Glycosylation	Ratio and sugar moiety count increase.	Not applicable (rare in SC libraries).	Reflects advanced isolation of glycosylated secondary metabolites [8].

Scaffold and Fragment Diversity

The analysis of molecular frameworks revealed fundamental differences in structural diversity and evolution [8].

• Scaffold Uniqueness: The proportion of unique Bemis-Murcko scaffolds was consistently higher in NP datasets compared to SC datasets across all time cohorts. This indicates that, on average, NPs share fewer common structural cores, reflecting greater scaffold diversity.
• Fragment Analysis: RECAP fragment analysis showed that while SC libraries contain a vast number of distinct fragments, these fragments are often simple and synthetically accessible. NP fragments, though fewer in absolute count, are more complex, oxygen-rich, and contain more stereocenters. Over time, the uniqueness and complexity of NP fragments increased.

Dynamics of Chemical Space Occupation

Chemical space visualization provided a global view of the evolutionary divergence [8] [74].

• PCA Analysis: PCA plots constructed from molecular descriptor data showed that the NP chemical space expanded and became less densely clustered over time, spreading into regions of higher complexity and lipophilicity. The SC chemical space, while also expanding, remained more concentrated in regions defined by lower molecular weight and higher aromaticity. The overlap between the two spaces did not increase significantly over time.
• TMAP Visualization: TMAPs confirmed that NPs and SCs occupy distinct, though adjacent, regions of chemical space. Later time cohorts of NPs extended further into unique branches of the map, while SC cohorts filled in space around established, central nodes.

Diagram 2: Chemical Space Evolution Over Time

Experimental Protocols for Key Analyses

Protocol 1: Time-Series Grouping and Property Calculation

Objective: To create comparable chronological cohorts and generate a foundational descriptor matrix [8].

• Data Preparation: Load canonical SMILES strings and associated temporal identifiers (CAS Numbers for SCs, publication dates for NPs) for each dataset.
• Chronological Sorting: Sort all molecules within the NP and SC sets by their temporal identifier in ascending order.
• Cohort Generation: Partition the sorted lists into consecutive groups of 5,000 molecules. Discard any remainder to ensure uniform group size. Label cohorts sequentially (Group 1 = earliest, Group 37 = latest).
• Descriptor Calculation: For every molecule in every cohort, calculate a standardized set of 39+ 1D and 2D molecular descriptors using a cheminformatics toolkit (e.g., RDKit). Core descriptors must include: Molecular Weight, Number of Heavy Atoms, Number of Aromatic Rings, Number of Aliphatic Rings, Rotatable Bond Count, Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA), and LogP (calculated via a consensus method like XLogP).

Protocol 2: Scaffold and Fragment Analysis

Objective: To decompose molecules into core scaffolds and functional fragments to assess structural diversity [8].

• Bemis-Murcko Scaffold Generation:
  • For each molecule, remove all terminal acyclic atoms (side chains), retaining only ring systems and the linkers that connect them.
  • Convert the resulting structure into a canonical scaffold representation (SMILES).
  • Calculate the percentage of unique scaffolds within each 5,000-molecule cohort.
• RECAP Fragmentation:
  • Apply the RECAP rule set (designed to mimic retrosynthetic cleavages at bonds like amide, ester) to each molecule.
  • Generate a list of all unique fragments from each cohort.
  • Analyze fragment distributions: calculate the frequency of each fragment and compare the complexity (e.g., heavy atom count, presence of stereocenters) of NP-derived vs. SC-derived fragments.

Protocol 3: Chemical Space Visualization with TMAP

Objective: To create an interpretable, two-dimensional visualization of high-dimensional chemical space for cohort comparison [8].

• Fingerprint Generation: Encode every molecule in the study using a extended-connectivity fingerprint (ECFP4, radius 2).
• Similarity Forest Construction: Use the TMAP algorithm to create a hierarchical layout.
  • Project the high-dimensional fingerprint vectors into a lower-dimensional space using the LSH Forest algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor search.
  • Build a minimum spanning tree (MST) to connect all data points, then generate a layout using a force-directed algorithm (e.g., Faerun) optimized for clarity.
• Visualization and Coloring: Render the TMAP. Color-code nodes (molecules) based on:
  • Dataset Origin: Use a primary color (e.g., green for NPs, red for SCs).
  • Time Cohort: Use a gradient of lightness/darkness within each color, where darker shades represent later cohorts. This allows immediate visual assessment of where newer compounds from each class are located in the shared chemical space.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents, Databases, and Software for NP/SC Evolutionary Analysis

Tool/Reagent	Category	Primary Function in Analysis	Example/Source
Dictionary of Natural Products	Database	Primary, curated source of natural product structures and associated metadata (isolation source, date) [8].	Chapman & Hall/CRC Press
CAS Registry	Database & Identifier	Provides unique identifiers and synthesis dates for synthetic compounds, enabling chronological sorting [8].	Chemical Abstracts Service
RECAP Rules	Cheminformatic Algorithm	Defines a set of retrosynthetically inspired chemical transformations to fragment molecules into biologically relevant building blocks for diversity analysis [8].	-
Bemis-Murcko Scaffold Algorithm	Cheminformatic Algorithm	Extracts the core ring system with connecting linkers from a molecule, enabling scaffold diversity and uniqueness calculations [8].	-
Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP)	Molecular Representation	Creates a bit-string representation of a molecule's topology and functional groups, essential for chemical space mapping and similarity searches [8] [74].	-
TMAP (Tree MAP)	Visualization Software	Generates interpretable, hierarchical two-dimensional maps from high-dimensional chemical data for visual trend analysis [8].	GitHub: /reymond-group/tmap
Macrocyclic Synthesis Reagents	Synthetic Chemistry	Enables the construction of NP-inspired complex ring systems, bridging a key structural gap between NPs and SCs [75].	e.g., Ring-closing metathesis catalysts, stapling peptides

The divergent evolutionary paths of natural products (NPs) and synthetic compounds (SCs) have created two vast, partially overlapping regions of chemical space, each with distinct implications for drug discovery. NPs are the result of millions of years of evolutionary selection for biological interaction, often yielding structures with high complexity, stereochemical richness, and polypharmacology [76]. In contrast, SCs are designed with an emphasis on synthetic accessibility, lead-like properties, and often, specificity for a single target [8]. This fundamental difference in origin shapes their biological performance across three critical axes: the initial hit rates in screening campaigns, the quality and quantification of target engagement, and the novelty of their mechanisms of action (MoA). As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and complex diseases demand new therapeutic strategies, understanding these performance differentials is not merely academic but essential for directing future discovery efforts [76] [77]. This analysis frames the comparative biological performance of NPs and SCs within the broader thesis of their occupied chemical spaces, providing a technical guide for their application in modern drug development.

Comparative Hit Rates: From Screening to Clinical Success

Hit rate, the probability that a tested compound will show a desired biological activity, is the first practical filter in drug discovery. Evidence consistently shows that NPs and their derivatives exhibit superior hit rates and progression success compared to purely synthetic libraries.

Table 1: Comparative Hit Rates and Success Metrics for Natural Products vs. Synthetic Compounds

Metric	Natural Products (NPs) & Derivatives	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Data Source / Context
Proportion in Early-Stage Patents	~23%	~77%	Analysis of patent applications over several decades [78].
Phase I Clinical Trial Composition	~35%	~65%	Analysis of clinical trial data [78].
Phase III Clinical Trial Composition	~45%	~55%	Steady increase from Phase I to III for NPs; inverse trend for SCs [78].
Attrition Due to Lack of Efficacy	Lower	Higher	NPs' validated bioactivity and polypharmacology reduce efficacy failure [76] [78].
In Vitro Toxicity Profile	Generally more favorable	Less favorable	NPs and derivatives show lower toxicity in comparative studies [78].

The data reveal a critical trend: while SCs dominate initial screening libraries due to ease of synthesis and compliance with "drug-like" rules, NPs consistently enrich for bioactivity [78] [8]. Their evolutionary pre-optimization for interacting with biological macromolecules translates to a higher frequency of meaningful hits in phenotypic and target-based screens. This advantage compounds through the development pipeline. The increasing proportion of NPs from Phase I to Phase III clinical trials suggests they survive efficacy and toxicity hurdles at a higher rate [78]. This is attributed to their inherently validated biological relevance and often, multi-target mechanisms that may offer a more robust therapeutic effect and lower potential for single-target-mediated resistance, especially in antimicrobial contexts [76].

Target Engagement: Methodologies for Validating Interactions

Confirming that a compound physically engages its intended target in a physiologically relevant context is a cornerstone of modern drug discovery. The choice of assay depends on the need to measure binding affinity, kinetics, location, and cellular permeability.

Table 2: Key Target Engagement Assays: Principles and Applications [79]

Assay Category & Name	Key Measured Parameters	Typical Throughput	Key Advantages	Primary System
Thermal Shift (CETSA, TSA)	ΔTm (Thermal Stability Shift)	Medium-High	Label-free; works in cells (CETSA).	RP, CL, LC
Biosensing (SPR, BLI)	KD, kon, koff, Residence Time (τ)	Low-Medium	Provides real-time kinetics.	RP, MP
Calorimetry (ITC)	KD, ΔH, ΔS, N (Stoichiometry)	Low	Gold standard for thermodynamics.	RP
Mass Spectrometry (HDX-MS)	Binding Epitope, Protein Conformation	Low	Provides structural insights on binding.	RP, CL
Structural Biology (X-ray, Cryo-EM)	Atomic-resolution 3D Structure	Low	Definitive binding site identification.	RP
Cellular Accumulation (CeTEAM)	Cellular Target Engagement, Phenotypic Link	Medium	Links binding directly to phenotype in live cells [80].	LC

Experimental Protocol: Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA) CETSA validates target engagement in a cellular context by exploiting ligand-induced thermal stabilization [79].

• Cell Preparation: Culture cells expressing the target protein. Seed into multiple aliquots.
• Compound Treatment: Treat aliquots with test compound or vehicle control for a defined period.
• Heat Challenge: Subject each aliquot to a range of precise temperatures (e.g., 37°C–67°C) for 3-5 minutes.
• Cell Lysis: Rapidly lyse cells, then centrifuge at high speed to separate soluble protein from aggregated, denatured protein.
• Detection: Quantify the remaining soluble target protein in supernatants via Western blot or quantitative mass spectrometry.
• Data Analysis: Plot soluble protein fraction vs. temperature. Calculate the melting temperature (Tm). A rightward shift (ΔTm) in the compound-treated sample indicates thermal stabilization and direct target engagement.

Experimental Protocol: Cellular Target Engagement by Accumulation of Mutant (CeTEAM) CeTEAM is a novel method that couples target engagement measurement with downstream phenotypic readouts in live cells [80].

• Biosensor Engineering: Stably transfect cells with a construct expressing a destabilized missense mutant of the target protein (e.g., PARP1 L713F), fused to a reporter (e.g., GFP or luciferase).
• Compound Treatment: Treat biosensor cells with the test compound. The binding ligand stabilizes the mutant protein, slowing its proteasomal degradation.
• Accumulation Readout: Measure the increase in mutant protein abundance over time as a proxy for binding. This is done via fluorescence microscopy (GFP) or luminescence detection (luciferase).
• Phenotypic Coupling: Simultaneously or in parallel, measure a relevant phenotypic endpoint (e.g., cell viability, marker phosphorylation, DNA damage) in the same cell population.
• Data Analysis: Generate dose-response curves for both biosensor accumulation and phenotypic effect. This allows direct correlation of occupancy with functional outcome and can uncouple binding from efficacy.

Mechanism Novelty: Structural Origins of Polypharmacology and New Modes of Action

The novelty of a compound's mechanism of action is deeply rooted in its chemical structure. NPs occupy a region of chemical space characterized by greater scaffold diversity, stereochemical complexity, and a higher prevalence of "privileged" structures evolved for biological interaction compared to SCs [76] [8].

Table 3: Structural and Mechanistic Properties Influencing MoA Novelty [76] [8]

Property	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Impact on Mechanism Novelty
Scaffold Complexity	High; more chiral centers, macrocycles, fused/bridged ring systems.	Lower; designed for synthetic tractability, more flat aromatic rings.	Enables unique binding geometries and interactions with novel target sites.
Polypharmacology	Common; single NP often modulates multiple targets in a pathway.	Designed for specificity, but can lead to promiscuous off-target effects.	Multi-target engagement can yield synergistic effects and lower resistance risk [76].
Evolutionary Pressure	Millions of years of selection for biological signaling/defense.	No biological selection; based on medicinal chemistry principles.	NPs are pre-validated to interact with biomolecules in novel ways.
Common Targets	Cell wall/membrane, protein synthesis (ribosomes), multi-target disruptors.	Enzymes, kinases, GPCRs, ion channels.	NPs more frequently exploit novel targets like bacterial membranes or protein-protein interfaces.

The structural divergence is quantifiable. NPs have higher molecular weight, more oxygen atoms, more non-aromatic rings, and greater three-dimensional character [8]. SCs, constrained by synthetic rules and Lipinski's Rule of Five, cluster in a more defined region of property space with more nitrogen atoms and aromatic rings [8]. This directly translates to mechanism. For example, many antimicrobial NPs like pleuromutilins (e.g., Retapamulin) or defensins act on bacterial membrane integrity or peptidoglycan synthesis—targets that are difficult for conventional SCs to address effectively without significant toxicity [76]. Their multi-target, often non-enzymatic MoA presents a higher barrier for resistance development compared to single-enzyme inhibitors.

Integrated Discovery Workflow and Future Perspectives

A modern, integrated workflow leverages the strengths of both NP and SC chemical spaces. Initial screening of NP extracts or libraries capitalizes on their high hit rates and mechanistic novelty [76] [81]. Active leads are then characterized using cellular target engagement assays (e.g., CETSA, CeTEAM) to validate the MoA in a physiologically relevant setting [79] [80]. Subsequent optimization may involve semi-synthesis or biomimetic synthesis to improve drug-like properties while retaining the core bioactive scaffold [76]. Artificial intelligence is now playing a transformative role, using machine learning models trained on NP structures and bioactivity data to predict new bioactive entities, design optimized derivatives, and even infer mechanisms from chemical signatures [82].

The future of discovering novel mechanisms lies in deeper mining of untapped NP sources (e.g., marine, microbial) and the intelligent design of pseudo-natural products. These are synthetic compounds built by combining NP-derived fragments in novel arrangements, aiming to capture the biological relevance of NPs while exploring new chemical territory [8] [81]. Furthermore, NPs are ideal payloads for advanced modalities like antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), where their potent, novel cytotoxicity can be delivered with precision [81]. Overcoming the technical challenges of NP sourcing, synthesis, and characterization through continued technological innovation is essential to fully harness their superior biological performance for addressing unmet medical needs [82] [77].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Target Engagement and NP Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Key Application
Recombinant Target Protein	Purified protein for in vitro binding and structural studies.	SPR, ITC, X-ray crystallography, biochemical assays [79].
CETSA / TSA-Compatible Cell Lines	Cells expressing the endogenous or tagged target protein.	Cellular target engagement validation via thermal shift [79].
Engineered CeTEAM Biosensor Cell Line	Cells expressing a destabilized mutant target-reporter fusion.	Live-cell, time-resolved engagement linked to phenotype [80].
SPR Sensor Chips (e.g., CM5, NTA)	Surface for immobilizing target protein to measure binding interactions.	Label-free kinetic analysis (kon, koff, KD) [79].
ITC Assay Buffer Kits	Optimized buffers to ensure minimal background heat signals.	Accurate measurement of binding thermodynamics (ΔH, ΔS, KD) [79].
Stable Isotope-Labeled Amino Acids	For cell culture to produce labeled proteins for structural MS.	Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange Mass Spectrometry (HDX-MS) [79].
NP Fractionated Library	Pre-fractionated extracts or purified compound libraries from diverse sources.	High-throughput screening with reduced complexity for hit identification [76] [81].
Proteasome Inhibitor (e.g., MG132)	Inhibits the proteasome to block degradation of unstable proteins.	Control in CeTEAM to confirm mutant protein turnover mechanism [80].

The pursuit of novel therapeutics operates within a vast and unevenly explored chemical space. This landscape is primarily occupied by two distinct populations: naturally evolved natural products (NPs) and human-designed synthetic compounds (SCs). Framed within broader research on chemical space, NPs are recognized for their profound structural diversity, complexity, and high degree of biological relevance, honed by millions of years of evolutionary selection [83] [18]. In contrast, SCs, while vast in number, often occupy a more confined and conservative region of chemical space, historically shaped by synthetic accessibility and "drug-like" rules such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [9].

The central thesis of this analysis is that natural product-inspired synthetic drugs represent a strategic hybrid class, deliberately designed to bridge these two chemical worlds. These hybrids aim to assimilate the privileged bioactivity and structural novelty of NPs with the synthetic tractability, optimized pharmacokinetics, and targeted efficacy of modern synthetic drugs [81] [9]. This whitepaper provides a technical guide to the defining properties of these hybrids, the methodologies for their analysis and creation, and their emerging role in expanding the frontiers of drug discovery.

Structural Evolution and Chemical Space Analysis

A time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis reveals divergent evolutionary paths for NPs and SCs, highlighting the unique niche occupied by hybrids [8].

Historical Divergence in Molecular Properties

Over time, newly discovered NPs have trended toward larger size, greater complexity, and increased hydrophobicity. They exhibit growing numbers of rings and ring systems, particularly non-aromatic and fused rings, and show an increase in glycosylation [8]. Conversely, the physicochemical properties of SCs have shifted but within a narrower, more constrained range, influenced by drug-like paradigms [8]. SCs are characterized by a higher prevalence of aromatic rings and simpler ring assemblies.

Mapping the Hybrid Advantage in Chemical Space

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrates that NPs occupy a broader, more diverse region of chemical space than entirely synthetic drugs [9]. Drugs derived from or inspired by NPs inherit this expansive coverage. Hybrids (categorized as S* or ND in seminal studies) effectively translate NP-like features—such as increased stereochemical content and fraction of sp³-hybridized carbons (Fsp3)—into synthetically accessible frameworks, thereby populating underserved areas of chemical space [9].

Table 1: Key Differentiating Properties of NPs, SCs, and NP-Inspired Hybrid Drugs

Property	Natural Products (NPs)	Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	NP-Inspired Hybrid Drugs
Molecular Size & Complexity	Larger MW, more rings, higher Fsp3 [8] [9]	Smaller MW, fewer rings, lower Fsp3 [8] [9]	Intermediate to high MW, elevated Fsp3 & stereocenters [9]
Ring Systems	More non-aromatic, fused rings [8]	Dominated by aromatic rings (e.g., benzene) [8]	Blend of aromatic and complex aliphatic systems
Heteroatom Profile	Higher oxygen content [8] [9]	Higher nitrogen content [8] [9]	Variable, often retaining NP-like oxygenation
Hydrophobicity	Increasing over time, but generally lower cLogP [8] [18]	Governed by drug-like rules [8]	Optimized for balance between activity and bioavailability
Chemical Space	Broad, diverse, evolutionarily selected [9] [18]	Narrower, focused on synthetic accessibility [9]	Bridges NP diversity and SC-like regions [9]
Biological Relevance	High, with pre-validated bioactivity [83] [18]	Lower, requires extensive screening [8]	High, via retention of NP pharmacophore [9]

Diagram 1: Conceptual Relationship of Chemical Spaces and Hybrid Drug Properties

Core Physicochemical Properties of NP-Inspired Hybrids

The hybrid advantage is quantifiable through a suite of cheminformatic descriptors that distinguish these compounds from purely synthetic libraries [9].

Table 2: Key Physicochemical Descriptors for Hybrid Analysis [9]

Descriptor	Acronym	Significance for Hybrid Drugs
Molecular Weight	MW	Often higher than typical SCs, reflecting NP-like scaffolds.
Fraction of sp³ Carbons	Fsp3	Critical metric. Higher Fsp3 correlates with 3D complexity, improved solubility, and clinical success. Hybrids inherit elevated Fsp3 from NPs [9].
Number of Stereocenters	nStereo	Indicates chiral complexity. NP-inspired hybrids typically have more defined stereocenters than flat SCs.
Stereochemical Density	nStMW	nStereo normalized by MW; assesses complexity independent of size.
Number of Oxygen Atoms	O	Higher oxygen content is characteristic of NPs and is often retained in hybrids [8].
Number of Nitrogen Atoms	N	Lower than in many SC libraries, reflecting a different heteroatom profile [8].
Topological Polar Surface Area	tPSA	Influences membrane permeability. NP-inspired structures may violate standard rules but remain bioavailable [18].
Calculated LogP	ALOGPs	Measure of lipophilicity. Hybrids aim for an optimal balance, often lower than many SCs [9].

Design Strategies and Experimental Protocols

The creation of NP-inspired hybrids employs rational strategies to deconstruct and reconfigure natural motifs.

Pseudo-Natural Product Strategy

This approach involves the combination of two or more NP-derived fragments through connections not found in nature [8]. The resulting "pseudo-NP" aims to generate novel chemical entities that occupy previously unexplored regions of chemical space while retaining biological relevance.

Protocol 4.1.1: Fragment-Based Hybrid Design

• Fragment Identification: Select privileged NP fragments (e.g., via RECAP analysis or from NP fragment libraries [8]) with known bioactivity or target engagement.
• In Silico Recombination: Use computational tools to generate virtual libraries of hybrid structures by linking fragments via synthetically tractable connectors.
• Property Filtering: Screen the virtual library using filters for desired hybrid properties (e.g., Fsp3 > 0.35, tPSA < 140 Ų, rule-of-five compliance if required for oral bioavailability).
• Synthetic Planning: Employ retrosynthetic analysis software to plan feasible synthetic routes for top-ranked hybrid candidates.

Structure-Based Pharmacophore Hybridization

This method uses the 3D structure of an NP bound to its target to identify the essential pharmacophore, which is then integrated into a synthetically optimized scaffold.

Protocol 4.2.1: Pharmacophore Modeling & Scaffold Morphing

• Target-NP Complex Analysis: Obtain a crystal structure or generate a reliable docking pose of the lead NP with its biological target.
• Pharmacophore Extraction: Define the critical hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, hydrophobic regions, and ionic interactions responsible for binding.
• Synthetic Scaffold Matching: Screen databases of synthetically accessible scaffolds (e.g., Bemis-Murcko scaffolds from commercial libraries) for those that can spatially display the identified pharmacophore.
• Hybrid Synthesis & Validation: Synthesize the hybrid molecule and validate target binding and functional activity in vitro.

Diagram 2: Workflow for the Design of NP-Inspired Hybrid Drugs

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Hybrid Drug Research

Tool/Reagent Category	Specific Examples & Functions	Application in Hybrid Research
NP & Fragment Databases	Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP), COCONUT, NP Fragment Libraries [8] [83].	Source of inspiration for privileged fragments and scaffolds for hybridization.
Synthetic Compound Libraries	Enamine REAL, ChemBridge, MCULE [8].	Source of synthetically accessible building blocks and scaffolds for hybrid assembly.
Cheminformatics Software	RDKit, Schrödinger Suite, MOE.	For descriptor calculation (Fsp3, tPSA, etc.), virtual screening, and pharmacophore modeling [9].
Retrosynthesis & Synthesis Planning	Reaxys, SciFinder, ASKCOS.	To design feasible synthetic routes for complex hybrid molecules.
Analytical Standards & Separation Media	Chiral HPLC columns, Sephadex LH-20, certified reference standards.	Essential for the purification and stereochemical analysis of complex hybrid molecules, which often contain multiple chiral centers.
In Silico ADMET Prediction Platforms	SwissADME, pkCSM, QikProp.	To predict and optimize the pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles of hybrid candidates early in the design process [83].
Genome Mining & Bioinformatics Tools	antiSMASH, DeepBGC, GNPS [18].	For identifying novel NP biosynthetic gene clusters that can inspire entirely new hybrid scaffolds.

Future Perspectives: Integrating Advanced Technologies

The field is being revolutionized by the convergence of hybrid design with advanced technologies [81] [18].

• AI and Machine Learning: AI models are being trained on NP and hybrid structures to generate novel, synthetically feasible designs and predict their bioactivity and properties [84] [18].
• Sustainable and Engineered Production: Challenges in NP sourcing are being addressed via synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. Biosynthetic gene clusters can be engineered into heterologous hosts (e.g., yeast, bacteria) for the sustainable production of NP precursors or complex hybrid scaffolds [18].
• Target Identification: Advanced chemical proteomics and chemogenomic platforms are accelerating the deconvolution of mechanisms of action for complex hybrids, linking their unique structures to novel biological targets [81].

NP-inspired synthetic drugs are not merely a compromise between two paradigms but a deliberate exploitation of the most advantageous properties from each. By strategically incorporating high three-dimensional complexity (Fsp3), distinct stereochemistry, and evolutionarily privileged scaffolds into synthetically optimized frameworks, these hybrids effectively expand the navigable chemical space for drug discovery [9]. This hybrid advantage translates into promising avenues for targeting difficult disease mechanisms, revitalizing antibiotic discovery, and developing novel oncotherapeutics. As computational power, synthetic methodologies, and biological understanding advance, the design and implementation of these hybrid molecules will become increasingly precise, solidifying their role as a cornerstone of next-generation therapeutic development [81] [18].

Conclusion

The comparative exploration of chemical space reveals that natural products and synthetic compounds are not competing but complementary resources. NPs provide evolutionarily validated, complex scaffolds that access unique, biologically relevant regions of chemical space, as evidenced by their continued major contribution to new drug approvals[citation:2][citation:3]. Conversely, SCs offer unparalleled synthetic tractability and the ability to systematically explore regions defined by human-designed logic. The future of productive drug discovery lies in sophisticated hybridization—using cheminformatic insights to guide the design of synthetic libraries enriched with NP-like complexity and biodiversity[citation:6][citation:9], and employing AI-driven synthesis planning to make inspired designs accessible[citation:8]. This integrated approach, moving beyond historical dichotomies, is essential for addressing undrugged targets, overcoming antimicrobial resistance, and revitalizing the small-molecule pipeline. Researchers are encouraged to leverage fragment libraries[citation:1], PNP strategies[citation:9], and advanced generative models[citation:8] to build the next generation of screening collections that fully capture the therapeutic potential of global chemical space.

References

• 1. Chemical space as a unifying theme for chemistry - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11740331/]
• 2. Growth vs. Diversity: A Time-Evolution Analysis of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11870478/]
• 3. On the biologically relevant chemical space: BioReCS [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2025.1674289/full]
• 4. Navigating the chemical space of natural products from diverse sources: a chemoinformatics perspective | Phytochemistry Reviews [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11101-025-10198-3]
• 5. Cheminformatic comparison of approved drugs from natural product versus synthetic origins - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4607632/]
• 6. Chemical Multiverse: An Expanded View of Chemical Space [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9787733/]
• 7. Chemical space visual navigation in the era of deep ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644625001059]
• 8. Time-Dependent Comparison of the Structural Variations ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/21/11475]
• 9. Cheminformatic comparison of approved drugs from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4607632/]
• 10. Chemical Evolution of Natural Product Structure - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8895405/]
• 11. Evolutionary Tree in Chemical Space of Natural Products [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40950011/]
• 12. Empowering natural product science with AI - RSC Publishing [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/np/d4np00008k]
• 13. Natural Products Research—Information for Researchers - nccih [https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/nutritional-interventions-and-natural-products-research-information-for-researchers]
• 14. Unifying principles for the design and evaluation of natural ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d4sc08017c]
• 15. Tango*: constrained synthesis planning using chemically ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00130g]
• 16. SynFlowNet: Design of Diverse and Novel Molecules with ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2405.01155v2]
• 17. A blueprint for designing the next-generation of synthetic C ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64483-y]
• 18. Revitalizing natural products for sustainable drug Discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554125001809]
• 19. Time-Dependent Comparison of the Structural Variations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11547171/]
• 20. Chemical evolution of natural product structure for drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065774323000064]
• 21. Top Trends in the Pharmaceutical Industry [2025] [https://www.epicflow.com/blog/top-trends-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry-what-to-expect/]
• 22. Estimation of synthetic score of drug-like molecules... accessibility [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1758-2946-1-8]
• 23. Targeted sampling of natural product space to identify ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46721-x]
• 24. NPGPT: natural -like product generation with GPT-based... compound [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11227-024-06860-w]
• 25. Natural product-informed exploration of chemical space to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8130614/]
• 26. Cheminformatics to Characterize Pharmacologically Active ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7698493/]
• 27. Effectiveness of molecular fingerprints for exploring the ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00830-3]
• 28. Comparative analysis of chemical similarity methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5559407/]
• 29. Scaffold hopping from natural products to synthetic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-018-0043-x]
• 30. A simple similarity metric for comparing synthetic routes [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d4dd00292j]
• 31. A Comparative Analysis of Cheminformatics Platforms [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/cheminformatics-platforms-comparison]
• 32. Unifying principles for the design and evaluation of natural ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc08017c]
• 33. Discovery of antiviral compounds targeting host lipid droplets [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045206825006145]
• 34. from Large and Novel Fragment ... Libraries Synthetic Compounds [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12044453/]
• 35. diversity in Chemical natural product libraries [https://www.news-medical.net/health/Expanding-discovery-with-chemical-diversity-in-natural-product-libraries.aspx]
• 36. combination to... | Natural Communications product fragment Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22174-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=940b6b02-daaf-4e8a-966c-73c96b3a868b]
• 37. Bibliometrics Analysis and Knowledge Mapping of Fragment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12106911/]
• 38. Non-Extensive Fragmentation of Natural Products and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.700802/full]
• 39. A divergent intermediate strategy yields... | Nature Chemistry [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-024-01458-4?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 40. Identification of readily available pseudo - natural - RSC... products [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/md/d4md00310a]
• 41. and Natural - Products against Veterinary... Pseudo natural Products [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/51629/natural-products-and-pseudo-natural-products-against-veterinary-disease-causing-microorganisms/magazine]
• 42. Exploring Dimensionality Reduction for Chemical Space ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11733715/]
• 43. Diversity-oriented synthesis as a tool for the discovery of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1081]
• 44. Biology-oriented synthesis [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22038946/]
• 45. Diversity-oriented synthetic strategy for developing a ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13196]
• 46. Natural products as an inspiration in the diversity-oriented ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2496956/]
• 47. Recent Advances in Diversity-Oriented Synthesis [https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/special_issues/recent_advances_DOS]
• 48. Diversity-oriented synthesis as a tool to expand the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089621002261]
• 49. Current strategies for diversity-oriented synthesis [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136759311000044X]
• 50. Diversity-Oriented Synthesis at the Chemistry-Biology Interface [http://www.brandon-russell.com/dos.shtml]
• 51. Next generation diversity-oriented synthesis: a paradigm ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ob/c8ob02327a]
• 52. Learning To Navigate The Synthetically Accessible ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12485]
• 53. Natural product scores and fingerprints extracted from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8445839/]
• 54. Fragment libraries from large synthetic compounds and ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67a3b0db81d2151a024b2e66]
• 55. A review of natural products as a source of next-generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00119-x]
• 56. Grand challenges in chemical biology from the perspective ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemical-biology/articles/10.3389/fchbi.2025.1731631/full]
• 57. Biomimetic synthesis of natural products [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1075330]
• 58. Synthetic Accessibility: Definition, Importance, and How to ... [https://neurosnap.ai/blog/post/synthetic-accessibility-definition-importance-and-how-to-assess-it-with-neurosnap/68cb0899cec8a8b395412c77]
• 59. Estimating the synthetic accessibility of molecules with ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00879-0]
• 60. Synthetic accessibility scoring and its application to ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/ta/d5ta01042j]
• 61. Growing and linking optimizers: synthesis-driven molecule ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12459256/]
• 62. SAVI Space—combinatorial encoding of the billion-size ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05384-z]
• 63. Evaluating and evolving a screening library in academia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8131249/]
• 64. SymeGold: Compound Library and Screening [https://symeres.com/symegold/]
• 65. Screening Libraries - Sets [https://ac-discovery.com/screening-libraries-sets/]
• 66. A quantitative model of structure-based virtual screening ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/69037e08113cc7cfff050553]
• 67. 67 million natural product-like compound database ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02207-x]
• 68. Natural product databases for drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773216924000163]
• 69. Natural products subsets: Generation and characterization [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667318523000107]
• 70. A divergent intermediate strategy yields biologically ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-024-01458-4]
• 71. Bridging chemical space and biological efficacy: advances ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13659-025-00521-y]
• 72. Natural products chemistry: The emerging trends and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6036106/]
• 73. Identifying variants of molecules through database search ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00923-5]
• 74. A Time-Evolution Analysis of the Chemical Space [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Growth-vs-Diversity%3A-A-Time-Evolution-Analysis-of-P%C3%A9rez-L%C3%B3pez-L%C3%B3pez/6522f4e6c31fe27ce3323d3f609f5902d9341c36]
• 75. Exploring Macrocyclic Chemical Space: Strategies and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40430438/]
• 76. Advances in structural modification of natural products with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0367326X25004411]
• 77. Towards the sustainable discovery and development of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-021-00313-1]
• 78. Natural Products Have Increased Rates of Clinical Trial ... [https://www.lifescience.net/publications/1564087/natural-products-have-increased-rates-of-clinical-/]
• 79. Target Engagement Assays in Early Drug Discovery - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12207595/]
• 80. Coupling cellular drug-target engagement to downstream ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54415-7]
• 81. The latest advances with natural products in drug discovery ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40391763/]
• 82. Artificial intelligence for natural product drug discovery and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666521225001206]
• 83. Challenges in natural product-based drug discovery ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10613855/]
• 84. 5 expert predictions cover synthetic data, hybrid trials and more [https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/drug-development-in-2025-5-expert-predictions-cover-synthetic-data-hybrid-trials-and-more/]