The Evolving Landscape of Natural Product Databases: A 2025 Review of Trends, Applications, and Challenges in Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural evolution and temporal trends in natural product (NP) databases from 2000 to the present. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational growth of over 120 NP resources, detailing the shift from commercial monopolies to open-access initiatives like COCONUT, which now aggregates over 400,000 non-redundant compounds. The review further examines the methodological applications of these databases in virtual screening, knowledge graph construction, and molecular generation. It addresses critical troubleshooting aspects related to data quality, stereochemistry, and accessibility, and offers a comparative validation of major commercial and public databases. By synthesizing two decades of progress, this article serves as an essential guide for leveraging NP databases to accelerate modern, computation-enabled drug discovery.

From Proliferation to Curation: The Historical Expansion of Natural Product Databases

The field of natural products (NPs) research has witnessed an unprecedented data revolution over the past two decades. In 2000, researchers had access to approximately 20 dedicated NP databases; by 2020, this number had exploded to over 120 different databases and collections [1]. This remarkable growth, representing a six-fold increase, reflects both the continuing scientific interest in NPs and the broader data explosion across the life sciences. Natural products, defined as chemicals produced by living organisms excluding primary metabolites, have been the cornerstone of drug discovery for centuries. Between 1981 and 2019, 68% of approved small-molecule drugs were directly or indirectly derived from natural products [2].

This proliferation of resources, however, has created significant challenges alongside opportunities. Researchers now face a fragmented landscape of specialized databases with varying accessibility, curation standards, and focuses. The lack of a centralized community resource for NPs, analogous to UniProt for proteins or NCBI Taxonomy for organisms, has led to duplication of efforts and accessibility issues [1]. This comprehensive analysis tracks the evolution of NP databases from 2000 to the present, quantifying their expansion, classifying their diversity, and providing researchers with methodological frameworks for navigating this complex ecosystem. Understanding this structural evolution is crucial for advancing NP research in drug discovery, cosmetic development, and agricultural applications.

Quantitative Analysis: Mapping Two Decades of Database Expansion

The Current Landscape of NP Databases

Table 1: Classification and Accessibility of Natural Products Databases (as of 2020)

Database Category	Total Number	Open Access	Commercial	No Longer Accessible
All NP Databases	123	50	-	25
Generalistic	-	16	-	-
Thematic	-	18	-	-
Metabolite	-	7	-	-
Spectral	-	5	-	-
Industrial Catalogs	-	4	-	-

The comprehensive review of NP resources published in the Journal of Cheminformatics in 2020 revealed a total of 123 distinct NP databases and collections cited in scientific literature since 2000 [1]. This represents the most complete census of NP databases available. However, this quantitative expansion has not translated into uniform accessibility. Of these 123 resources, only 98 remained accessible in some form as of 2020, with a mere 50 offering open access to their data. This signifies a dramatic data loss rate of approximately 20% over two decades, highlighting the sustainability challenges in this rapidly evolving field [1].

Among the open-access databases, researchers can leverage resources across several categories. Generalistic databases (16 open resources) provide broad coverage without specific taxonomic or geographic focus. Thematic databases (18 open resources) concentrate on specific areas such as traditional medicine, particular geographic regions, or specific taxonomic groups. Additional specialized categories include metabolite databases (7 open resources) that include both primary and secondary metabolites, spectral databases (5 open resources) focused on NMR and mass spectrometry data for dereplication, and industrial catalogs (4 open resources) from companies that synthesize or isolate NPs for sale [1].

Table 2: Content Comparison of Major Natural Products Databases

Database Name	Type	Number of Compounds	Key Features	Access
COCONUT	Generalistic	>400,000	Largest open collection; non-redundant	Open
Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP)	Commercial	~300,000	Most complete; best-curated	$6,600/year
SciFinder	Commercial	>300,000	Largest curated collection overall	>$40,000/year
Reaxys	Commercial	~200,000	Includes substances, reactions, documents	Commercial
MarinLit	Commercial	-	Marine NPs; highly curated since 1970s	Commercial
AntiBase	Commercial	~40,000	NPs from microorganisms & higher fungi	Commercial

The content analysis of available NP databases reveals significant variation in scale and specialization. The COlleCtion of Open NatUral prodUcts (COCONUT) represents the largest open-access resource, containing structures and sparse annotations for over 400,000 non-redundant NPs [1]. This collection was compiled from multiple open-access resources and made available on Zenodo to ensure preservation and accessibility. In the commercial domain, the Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP) is widely considered the most complete and best-curated resource, containing approximately 300,000 compounds with an annual subscription cost of around $6,600 [1]. Even more extensive is SciFinder from the Chemical Abstracts Service, which likely represents the largest curated collection of NPs overall with over 300,000 entries, though with substantially higher access costs exceeding $40,000 annually [1].

The structural diversity contained within these databases is remarkable. Comparative analyses indicate that NPs occupy a more diverse chemical space than synthetic compounds, with higher structural complexity and uniqueness [2]. This diversity stems from millions of years of evolutionary selection and explains why NPs remain invaluable for drug discovery, offering privileged scaffolds that interact with biological targets through novel modes of action.

Methodological Framework: Experimental Protocols for Database Analysis

Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends

The methodological approach for analyzing trends in NP database development and utilization has been significantly advanced through bibliometric analysis. This quantitative method employs tools like CiteSpace and VOSviewer to map collaborative networks, analyze research hotspot evolution, and identify emerging frontiers [3]. The standard protocol involves:

• Data Retrieval: Querying scientific literature databases like Web of Science Core Collection using Boolean logic to construct comprehensive search strategies. A typical query includes terms related to natural products combined with database, cheminformatics, or virtual screening terminology [3].

• Data Screening: Applying strict inclusion/exclusion criteria to filter results to relevant publications, typically research articles and review articles in English. This process usually reduces the initial result set by 5-10% after removing duplicates and irrelevant document types [3].

• Network Construction: Creating collaboration networks among countries, institutions, and authors where nodes represent research entities and connecting lines indicate relationship strength. Nodes with centrality values exceeding 0.1 are considered pivotal points within the research domain [3].

• Trend Analysis: Performing co-citation analysis, keyword co-occurrence mapping, and burst detection to identify developmental trajectories and emerging concepts. Temporal visualization reveals how research focus has shifted from phenomenological description toward mechanistic investigation and clinical translation [3].

This methodology was successfully applied to the hypertension-gut microbiota field, analyzing 2,827 qualified publications and revealing three distinct evolutionary phases: slow accumulation (2000-2013), accelerated growth (2014-2019), and high-level stabilization (2020-2025) [3]. Similar approaches can be adapted specifically for analyzing NP database development trends.

Chemoinformatic Analysis of Structural Data

For analyzing the structural content of NP databases, chemoinformatic protocols have been developed to enable systematic comparisons:

• Data Standardization: Converting structural representations from various formats (SMILES, SDF, InChI) into standardized, comparable representations. This process includes removing duplicates and standardizing stereochemical representations [1].

• Descriptor Calculation: Computing key molecular descriptors including physicochemical properties (molecular weight, logP, polar surface area), structural features (ring systems, functional groups), and complexity metrics [2].

• Scaffold Analysis: Decomposing molecules into their core structural frameworks using algorithms such as Bemis-Murcko scaffolding, then analyzing scaffold diversity and complexity across databases [2].

• Chemical Space Mapping: Using dimensionality reduction techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and visualization methods like Tree MAP (TMAP) to compare and contrast the chemical space covered by different NP databases [2].

A recent time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis compared NPs with synthetic compounds, revealing that NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, exhibiting increased structural diversity and uniqueness [2]. This analysis of 186,210 NPs and an equal number of synthetic compounds, grouped into 37 chronological cohorts, provides a template for similar temporal analyses of NP database content evolution.

Database Analysis Workflow: This diagram illustrates the integrated methodological approach combining bibliometric and chemoinformatic analyses for tracking NP database evolution.

Research Reagent Solutions for NP Database Analysis

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Natural Products Database Analysis

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CiteSpace	Software	Bibliometric analysis & visualization	Mapping research trends, collaboration networks
VOSviewer	Software	Network visualization & clustering	Creating co-authorship, co-citation networks
COCONUT	Database	Largest open NP collection (>400,000 compounds)	Virtual screening, chemical space analysis
Dictionary of Natural Products	Database	Comprehensive commercial NP resource	Reference data, structural verification
SciFinder	Database	Largest curated chemical database	Extensive literature and compound searching
RDKit	Software	Cheminformatics toolkit	Structural analysis, descriptor calculation
CDK	Software	Cheminformatics libraries	Molecular fingerprinting, property calculation
KNIME	Platform	Data analytics workflow platform	Building automated analysis pipelines

The effective utilization of NP databases requires a sophisticated toolkit of research reagents and analytical resources. For bibliometric analysis, CiteSpace and VOSviewer have emerged as essential software tools, enabling quantitative mapping of scientific literature and collaboration patterns in the NP field [3]. These tools specialize in different aspects of analysis—CiteSpace excels in temporal evolution analysis and burst detection, while VOSviewer specializes in collaboration network construction and co-occurrence clustering [3].

For structural analysis of NP database content, cheminformatics toolkits like RDKit and the Chemistry Development Kit (CDK) provide essential functions for calculating molecular descriptors, generating chemical fingerprints, and analyzing structural diversity. These open-source tools can be integrated into workflow platforms like KNIME to create reproducible analysis pipelines for comparing NP databases [2] [1].

The database resources themselves form the core of the NP research toolkit. For researchers without access to commercial resources, the COCONUT database provides an unprecedented collection of over 400,000 open-access NPs, making it the most comprehensive free resource available [1]. For institutions with appropriate budgets, commercial resources like the Dictionary of Natural Products and SciFinder offer superior curation, more extensive metadata, and broader coverage of the NP literature [1].

Future Perspectives: Challenges and Emerging Directions

Despite the remarkable expansion of NP databases, significant challenges remain in the field. The fragmentation of data across numerous resources with different structures, annotation standards, and accessibility creates barriers to comprehensive analysis [1]. The loss of approximately 20% of NP databases over the past two decades highlights sustainability issues and the risk of valuable data becoming inaccessible to the research community [1]. Additionally, inconsistent stereochemical representation remains a problem, with almost 12% of collected molecules in open databases lacking stereochemistry information despite having stereocenters [1].

Future developments in the field are likely to focus on several key areas. Integration initiatives that combine data from multiple sources into unified, standardized repositories will be essential for overcoming fragmentation. The FAIR Guiding Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) provide a framework for improving data management and stewardship in the NP field [1]. There is also growing interest in artificial intelligence and machine learning applications for predicting NP bioactivity, optimizing virtual screening, and identifying novel structural patterns across large database collections [3].

The continued discovery of NPs with unique structural features suggests that database growth will continue. Recent analyses indicate that newly discovered NPs tend to be larger and more complex than their early counterparts, with more ring systems and increased structural diversity [2]. This expanding chemical space ensures that NP databases will remain essential resources for drug discovery and chemical biology, providing inspiration for new therapeutic agents and biological probes.

The dramatic expansion of natural products databases from approximately 20 resources in 2000 to over 120 today represents a fundamental transformation in how researchers access and utilize NP information. This database boom has created unprecedented opportunities for drug discovery, chemical biology, and materials science, while also presenting significant challenges in data integration, standardization, and preservation. The structural evolution of NP databases reflects broader trends in scientific data management, with increasing emphasis on open access, interoperability, and computational accessibility.

For researchers navigating this complex landscape, methodological approaches combining bibliometric analysis and chemoinformatic techniques provide powerful tools for tracking field evolution and analyzing database content. Essential resources like the COCONUT database offer comprehensive open-access NP collections, while commercial resources like the Dictionary of Natural Products provide expertly curated data for those with appropriate access. As the field continues to evolve, emphasis on FAIR data principles, sustainable database maintenance, and integration of artificial intelligence methodologies will be crucial for maximizing the scientific value of natural products information.

The continued growth and specialization of NP databases ensures that these resources will remain indispensable for uncovering the chemical diversity evolved in nature and harnessing it for addressing human health challenges, agricultural needs, and material science applications. The structural knowledge contained within these databases represents a foundational resource for the next generation of natural product discovery and development.

The structural evolution of natural product databases is intrinsically linked to the frameworks governing how scientific data is shared, accessed, and utilized. In modern research, particularly in life sciences and drug development, two parallel movements are shaping this landscape: the push for Open Data and the implementation of FAIR Data Principles. While often conflated, these frameworks represent distinct philosophies with significant implications for the pace and reproducibility of scientific discovery.

The analysis of natural products (NPs) has historically been a cornerstone of drug development, contributing to over 60% of marketed small-molecule drugs [4]. However, the advancement of this field faces a major challenge due to the combinatorial expansion of NPs' configurational space and their complex 3D structures [4]. Concurrently, the volume and complexity of data generated in modern research have necessitated more robust data management strategies. This article analyzes the trends in data accessibility by objectively comparing the principles of Open and FAIR data, placing this comparison within the broader thesis of structural evolution and temporal trends in natural product databases research. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding this interplay is crucial for navigating the future of data-driven discovery.

Defining the Frameworks: Open Data and the FAIR Principles

What is Open Data?

Open Data is characterized by its free accessibility and usability. It is a movement rooted in ideals of transparency and collaboration, aiming to make data available to everyone without restrictions for use, dissemination, and further development [5] [6]. The core principles of Open Data include:

• Availability and Access: The data must be freely accessible to all, preferably by downloading over the internet without paywalls or complex permissions [7].
• Reuse and Redistribution: There are no legal or technical restrictions on how the data can be utilized. The data must be provided under terms that permit reuse and redistribution, including the intermixing with other datasets [7] [6].
• Universal Participation: The data should be available to everyone to use and republish without restrictions, promoting innovation and societal benefit [7].

What are the FAIR Data Principles?

FAIR is a set of guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship designed to optimize data reuse. Their aim is to enhance the interoperability and reusability of digital assets, addressing the increasing volume and complexity of data in modern research [7] [8]. The acronym FAIR stands for:

• Findable: Data and metadata should be easy to locate by both humans and computer systems. This involves assigning unique and persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs) and providing rich metadata that is registered in a searchable resource [7] [6].
• Accessible: Data should be retrievable by its identifier using a standardized, open, and universally implementable protocol. It is important to note that the "A" in FAIR means "accessible under well-defined conditions," which allows for data protection when necessary and does not demand unrestricted access [7] [5].
• Interoperable: Data should be structured in a way that allows for seamless integration with other datasets and applications. This involves using shared languages, standardized vocabularies, and qualified references to other metadata [7] [6].
• Reusable: Data should be well-described to allow for replication and combination in different settings. This includes having clear usage licenses, detailed provenance information, and meeting domain-relevant community standards [7] [6].

Comparative Analysis: Open Data vs. FAIR Data

While Open Data and FAIR Data share the common goal of making data more available, they differ in several key aspects, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Key Differences Between Open Data and FAIR Data

Aspect	Open Data	FAIR Data
Core Philosophy	Promotes unrestricted sharing and transparency [7]	Ensures data is machine-readable and reusable [7]
Accessibility	Always open and freely available to all [7]	Can be open or restricted based on use case (e.g., privacy, IP) [7] [5]
Primary Focus	Human usability and redistribution [6]	Both human and computational usability, with a strong emphasis on machine-actionability [7]
Metadata & Documentation	Can be included but is not a strict requirement [7]	Rich metadata and clear documentation are fundamental requirements [7] [6]
Interoperability	Not a core requirement; data formats may vary [7]	A core principle; emphasizes standardized vocabularies and formats [7]
Typical Licensing	Utilizes open licenses like Creative Commons [7]	Varies—can include access restrictions and specific terms of use [7]

A key distinction is that not all Open Data is FAIR, and not all FAIR data is Open [7] [5]. For instance, sensitive clinical trial data can be managed according to FAIR principles—making it findable and accessible under specific conditions to researchers—without being made fully open to the public, thus protecting patient privacy [7]. Conversely, a dataset might be freely available online (Open) but lack the structured metadata and persistent identifiers needed for a machine to process it automatically, rendering it not FAIR.

The Context of Natural Product Research and Structural Evolution

The concepts of Open and FAIR data are highly relevant to the field of natural product (NP) research, which is undergoing its own evolution. Chemoinformatic analyses reveal distinct temporal trends in the structural characteristics of NPs compared to synthetic compounds (SCs).

Temporal Trends in Natural Product and Synthetic Compound Structures

A time-dependent comparative study of over 186,000 NPs and 186,000 SCs has shown that the structural evolution of these two classes of compounds is diverging [2]. Key findings include:

• Molecular Size: Recently discovered NPs tend to be larger, with consistent increases in molecular weight, volume, and surface area. In contrast, the size of SCs has remained within a more limited range, likely constrained by synthetic technology and drug-like rules such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [2].
• Ring Systems: NPs are becoming more complex, with a gradual increase in the number of rings, particularly non-aromatic rings and sugar rings (glycosylation). SCs, meanwhile, are characterized by a greater prevalence of aromatic rings, with stable five- and six-membered rings being dominant [2].
• Chemical Space and Biological Relevance: NPs exhibit increased structural diversity and uniqueness, occupying a chemical space that is less concentrated than that of SCs. While SCs possess broader synthetic pathway diversity, there is a noted decline in their biological relevance over time [2].

These trends underscore the critical importance of NPs as a source of novel structures for drug discovery. However, a significant bottleneck persists: over 20% of known NPs lack complete chiral configuration annotations, and only 1–2% have fully resolved crystal structures [4]. This highlights an acute need for advanced structural prediction and data management tools.

The Role of FAIR and Open Data in Advancing NP Research

The structural complexity and volume of NP data make FAIR principles particularly crucial.

• Enabling AI and Machine Learning: The interoperability of big data for machines is fundamental for applying technologies like large language models (LLMs) and neural networks to NP research [5]. For example, the NatGen deep learning framework achieves near-perfect accuracy in predicting the 3D structures of natural products [4]. Such tools rely on high-quality, well-structured, and accessible datasets for training and validation.
• Facilitating Collaboration and Reproducibility: In collaborative drug discovery projects, FAIR data principles facilitate data sharing while protecting sensitive information or intellectual property [7]. Making data both Open and FAIR enhances research reproducibility by making data available for validation studies, as seen with resources like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [7].
• Bridging Structural Gaps: The findings that SCs have not fully evolved in the direction of NPs suggest a missed opportunity for bio-inspired drug discovery [2]. Openly available and FAIR-compliant NP databases can serve as a foundation for designing new pseudo-natural products and synthetic compounds that capture the valuable biological relevance of NPs.

Experimental Methodologies in Data Trend Analysis

Methodology for Time-Dependent Structural Comparison

The comparative analysis of NPs and SCs relied on a comprehensive chemoinformatic approach [2].

• Data Curation: 186,210 NPs and 186,210 SCs were sourced from specialized databases, including the Dictionary of Natural Products and 12 synthetic compound databases.
• Temporal Grouping: Molecules were sorted in chronological order based on their CAS Registry Numbers and divided into 37 sequential groups of 5,000 molecules each.
• Descriptor Calculation: A total of 39 physicochemical properties were computed for each molecule to characterize molecular size, ring systems, and other structural features.
• Fragment and Scaffold Analysis: Bemis-Murcko scaffolds, ring assemblies, side chains, and RECAP fragments were generated and compared using multiple metrics to assess structural diversity and complexity over time.
• Chemical Space Visualization: The chemical space of NPs and SCs was characterized and compared using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Tree MAP (TMAP), and SAR Map.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Structural Trend Analysis

Tool / Reagent	Type	Primary Function in Analysis
CAS Registry Numbers	Database Identifier	Used as a proxy for establishing the chronological order of compound discovery/synthesis [2].
Dictionary of Natural Products	Commercial Database	A primary source for curated natural product structures and data [2].
Bemis-Murcko Scaffolds	Computational Framework	Extracts the core molecular frameworks from structures to enable scaffold diversity analysis [2].
RECAP Fragments	Computational Algorithm	Generates logical molecular fragments based on common chemical reactions; used for fragment-based comparison [2].
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Statistical Method	Reduces the dimensionality of multivariate data (e.g., physicochemical properties) to visualize and compare chemical space [2].

Methodology for Assessing FAIR Data Compliance

Educational studies have developed and tested tools to evaluate the FAIRness of research data. One such study implemented a cross-sectional assessment within a postgraduate bioinformatics program [8].

• Tool Development: An 11-item questionnaire was developed based on existing tools like the ARDC FAIR Data Self-Assessment Tool. The questions were adapted to a Likert-type scale to measure the degree of adherence to each of the FAIR principles.
• Implementation: Students were trained in FAIR principles and data literacy. They were then instructed to implement Data Management Plans (DMPs) for their master's thesis projects, which included describing data systems, flow, roles, and methods for backup, storage, and archiving.
• Evaluation: The developed questionnaire was used to self-assess the FAIR status of the datasets used in the student projects. The questionnaire's internal consistency was statistically validated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients, confirming its reliability as an assessment tool [8].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship and interplay between the Open and FAIR data principles, and their combined role in supporting scientific research.

The analysis reveals that the Open and FAIR data movements are not mutually exclusive but are complementary forces driving the future of scientific research. The structural evolution of natural products, marked by increasing complexity and a unique chemical space, presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Fully leveraging this resource requires data management strategies that prioritize not only openness for collaboration but also the computational usability ensured by the FAIR principles.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the implication is clear: a strategic integration of both frameworks is essential. Future efforts should focus on building and contributing to NP databases that are both open, to foster transparency and collaboration, and FAIR, to enable advanced computational analysis, AI-driven discovery, and the reproducible science that will accelerate the development of new therapeutic agents.

The field of natural products (NPs) research is undergoing a significant transformation, marked by a strategic shift from general-purpose repositories toward highly specialized databases. This evolution is driven by the need to manage the inherent complexity of natural products and to contextualize their biological activity within specific frameworks, such as traditional medical systems, unique biodiversity hotspots, or distinct taxonomic groups. The growing recognition that NPs represent more than half of all FDA-approved drugs underscores the critical importance of this systematic organization of knowledge [9]. This guide objectively compares the performance and scope of these specialized databases, framing their development within the broader thesis of structural evolution and temporal trends in NP research. The analysis reveals that this targeted approach directly confronts the challenges of data redundancy, accessibility, and the integration of traditional knowledge with modern pharmacology, ultimately accelerating targeted drug discovery and enabling the precise dereplication of known compounds.

A Systematic Comparison of Specialized Database Types

The diversification of natural product databases can be categorized into three primary themes: traditional medicine, geographic regions, and biological taxonomy. The table below provides a quantitative and functional comparison of representative databases within these categories.

Table 1: Comparison of Specialized Natural Product Databases by Theme

Database Name	Primary Specialization	Key Features & Advantages	Reported Size (Number of Compounds)	Unique Structural Insights
TCM Database@Taiwan [9]	Traditional Chinese Medicine	Largest TCM data source for virtual screening; downloadable 2D/3D structures.	61,000	Focus on relationships between herbs, ingredients, and compounds.
TCMID [9] [10]	Traditional Chinese Medicine	Bridges TCM and modern medicine; integrates herbal ingredients, targets, and diseases.	25,210 compounds, 17,521 targets	Largest dataset in its field; enables herb-ingredient-target-disease network analysis.
CEMTDD [9]	Chinese Ethnic Minority Medicine	Integrates herbs, compounds, targets, and diseases; uses Cytoscape for network visualization.	4,060	Most complete database structure among comparable TCM databases at its time.
Nat-UV DB [11]	Geographic (Veracruz, Mexico)	Represents a coastal biodiversity hotspot; high structural diversity.	227	Contains 52 scaffolds not found in other NP databases; similar properties to approved drugs.
BIOFACQUIM [12] [11]	Geographic (Mexico)	Curated collection of NPs from Mexico.	531	Serves as a reference for Mexican natural product chemical space.
LaNAPDB [11]	Geographic (Latin America)	Aggregates natural products from multiple Latin American countries.	13,579	Enables regional cross-comparison of chemical diversity.
CNMR_Predict [13]	Taxonomic (e.g., Brassica rapa)	Creates taxon-specific databases with predicted 13C NMR data for dereplication.	Varies by taxon	Links structural data directly to taxonomic origin, streamlining identification.

This thematic specialization directly enhances research efficacy. For traditional medicine, databases like TCMID bridge the gap between historical use and modern molecular mechanisms by establishing connections between herbal ingredients and the disease-related proteins they target [9]. Geographically focused databases like Nat-UV DB demonstrate that region-specific NPs occupy valuable and unique chemical space, with analyses showing they possess a similar size, flexibility, and polarity to approved drugs while introducing novel scaffolds [11]. Taxonomically focused resources address the critical bottleneck of dereplication—the process of identifying known compounds to avoid re-isolation. By creating specialized databases for a given species or genus, supplemented with predicted 13C NMR data, tools like CNMR_Predict drastically improve the accuracy and efficiency of compound identification from complex extracts [13].

Experimental Protocols for Database Construction and Analysis

The development and validation of specialized databases rely on rigorous, reproducible methodologies. The following workflows detail the standard protocols for constructing a geographic NP database and for conducting a temporal analysis of structural trends.

Protocol for Building a Geographic Natural Product Database

The construction of a geographically-focused database, such as Nat-UV DB, follows a meticulous process of data collection, curation, and chemoinformatic characterization [11]. The workflow for this protocol is standardized to ensure data integrity and utility.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Database Construction

Research Tool / Reagent	Function in the Experimental Protocol
Literature Databases (PubMed, SciFinder, etc.)	Source for identifying published compounds and their associated metadata (source organism, location).
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Data	Critical for definitive structural elucidation; used as a filter for database inclusion.
ChemBioDraw / MOE (Molecular Operating Environment)	Software for generating and curating molecular structures (e.g., SMILES strings) and standardizing formats.
PubChem / ChEMBL Databases	Used for cross-referencing and annotating compounds with known biological activities.
DataWarrior / RDKit	Cheminformatics toolkits for calculating physicochemical properties (e.g., MW, ClogP) and analyzing chemical space.

Database Construction Workflow

Protocol for Temporal Analysis of Structural Trends

Analyzing the structural evolution of natural products over time, as performed in large-scale chemoinformatic studies, involves a systematic process of data grouping, descriptor calculation, and multi-faceted comparison [2]. The protocol is designed to uncover long-term trends in the chemical properties of NPs versus synthetic compounds (SCs).

Temporal Analysis Workflow

Key findings from such temporal analyses reveal that NPs have consistently become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, exhibiting increased structural diversity and uniqueness. In contrast, the structural evolution of synthetic compounds, while shifting, is constrained within a range governed by drug-like rules such as Lipinski's Rule of Five [2].

The Structural Evolution of Natural Products and Databases

The thematic diversification of databases is a direct response to the evolving structural understanding of natural products themselves. Large-scale, time-dependent chemoinformatic analyses reveal clear trends in the chemical space of NPs, which in turn informs the design of modern databases.

Table 3: Temporal Trends in Natural Product vs. Synthetic Compound Properties

Property Category	Key Trend in Natural Products (NPs)	Key Trend in Synthetic Compounds (SCs)	Research Implication
Molecular Size [2]	Consistent increase in molecular weight, volume, and heavy atom count.	Variation within a limited range, constrained by synthetic technology and drug-like rules.	NPs explore larger chemical space, necessitating databases that can handle greater complexity.
Ring Systems [2]	Increase in rings, ring assemblies, and non-aromatic rings; more glycosylation.	Greater prevalence of aromatic rings, especially five and six-membered; recent sharp increase in four-membered rings.	Thematic databases can focus on NPs with specific, complex ring systems valuable for drug design.
Structural Diversity [2]	Higher structural diversity and uniqueness; chemical space has become less concentrated.	Broader synthetic pathway diversity, but a decline in biological relevance.	Specialized databases preserve and highlight the unique, biologically relevant scaffolds of NPs.

These evolutionary trends highlight the critical role of specialized databases. As NPs continue to be discovered with increasing structural complexity, broadly-scoped databases risk becoming "flat" and difficult to mine for specific insights. The fragmentation into thematic, geographic, and taxonomic categories creates a more navigable and semantically rich data ecosystem. This allows researchers to ask more targeted questions, such as "What are the characteristic NPs from Brazilian plants?" or "Which TCM herbs contain compounds predicted to modulate GPCRs?", a family of proteins targeted by approximately one-third of all marketed drugs [14]. This structured, specialized approach is essential for unlocking the full potential of natural products in modern drug discovery.

The systematic documentation of natural products (NPs) represents a cornerstone of modern drug discovery and chemical biology. The compilation of over 400,000 non-redundant chemical structures in open collections marks a significant milestone in the field, enabling unprecedented analysis of nature's structural diversity and its temporal evolution. This vast repository of chemically characterized compounds provides researchers with essential resources for understanding the structural principles that govern biological activity in small molecules derived from nature. The availability of these large-scale, curated datasets has transformed natural product research from a discipline focused on individual compound discovery to one capable of data-driven exploration of chemical space and its relationship to biological function [15] [16].

Understanding the growth patterns and structural trends within these natural product collections offers valuable insights for drug development professionals seeking to leverage nature's innovations. As these databases continue to expand, they capture the historical progression of natural product discovery while simultaneously revealing how technological advances in isolation, purification, and structure elucidation have shaped our understanding of nature's chemical inventory. This quantitative assessment of natural product compilation provides both a retrospective analysis of past discoveries and a foundation for predicting future directions in the field [2].

Quantitative Landscape of Major Natural Product Databases

Database Scale and Composition

The landscape of natural product databases has expanded dramatically in recent years, with several major initiatives compiling comprehensive collections of characterized structures. The most significant development has been the creation of the COCONUT (Collection of Open Natural Products) database, which represents the largest open-access resource with 406,919 documented and unique natural products as of its most recent compilation [15]. This massive collection has been assembled from diverse sources including terrestrial plants, marine organisms, and microorganisms, representing the cumulative output of natural product research spanning several decades.

Other notable databases have contributed to this ecosystem, though often with more specialized foci. The African Natural Products Database (ANPDB) and Latin American Natural Product Database (LANaPD) have systematically cataloged compounds from their respective geographical regions, addressing previous biases in natural product representation [17]. Similarly, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Compound Database (TCMCD) has documented the chemical constituents of medically important plants used in traditional healing practices [2]. While these specialized collections vary in size, their integration into the broader natural product informatics infrastructure has been essential for capturing the full spectrum of chemical diversity found in nature.

Table 1: Major Natural Product Databases and Their Key Characteristics

Database Name	Number of Compounds	Scope	Access
COCONUT	406,919	Comprehensive global collection	Open
African Natural Products Database (ANPDB)	Not specified	African terrestrial and marine sources	Not specified
Latin American Natural Product Database (LANaPD)	Not specified	Latin American biodiversity	Not specified
Traditional Chinese Medicine Compound Database (TCMCD)	Not specified	Traditional Chinese medicinal plants	Not specified

Temporal Expansion Patterns

The growth of natural product collections follows a distinctive temporal pattern that reflects both technological innovation and changing research priorities. Analysis of the Dictionary of Natural Products reveals that approximately 1.1 million natural products have been characterized when considering both characterized and partially characterized compounds, though the 406,919 fully characterized structures in COCONUT represent the highest-confidence subset suitable for detailed cheminformatic analysis [2]. This expansion has not been linear; rather, specific periods of accelerated growth correspond to breakthroughs in separation technologies (such as HPLC and countercurrent chromatography) and structure elucidation methods (particularly advances in NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry) [18].

Recent analysis of temporal trends indicates that newly discovered natural products have become progressively larger and more complex over time. Molecular weight, molecular volume, and structural complexity metrics all show statistically significant increases when comparing compounds discovered in recent decades against those identified in earlier periods [2]. This trend likely reflects both the depletion of "low-hanging fruit" (simpler structures easily characterized with earlier technologies) and the increasing sophistication of analytical methods capable of resolving increasingly complex molecular architectures.

Methodological Framework for Database Compilation

Curation Workflows and Standardization Protocols

The compilation of high-quality natural product databases requires rigorous curation protocols to ensure structural accuracy and consistency across diverse sources. The COCONUT database employs a multi-stage workflow that begins with the aggregation of structural data from literature sources, patents, and existing databases, followed by a series of standardization and validation steps [15]. This process utilizes the ChEMBL chemical curation pipeline, which implements FDA/IUPAC guidelines for structure standardization and generates parent structures by removing isotopes, solvents, and salts to enable meaningful structural comparisons [15].

A critical challenge in natural product database compilation is the resolution of structural inaccuracies that have persisted in the literature. As highlighted in studies of structural revision, initial reports of natural product structures sometimes contain errors ranging from stereochemical misassignments to completely incorrect carbon skeletons [18]. Modern database curation must therefore incorporate verification mechanisms, including cross-referencing with synthetic studies and computational validation of spectroscopic data, to flag potentially problematic structures. The implementation of computer-assisted chemical structure elucidation (CASE) systems has proven particularly valuable for identifying inconsistencies between reported NMR data and proposed structures [18].

Cheminformatic Processing and Metrics

The transformation of raw structural data into a searchable, analyzable database requires the application of specialized cheminformatic tools. The RDKit toolkit serves as the workhorse for many of these operations, enabling the conversion of structural representations into canonical SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System), calculation of molecular descriptors, and generation of molecular fingerprints for similarity assessment [15]. For natural product databases specifically, the NP Score algorithm provides a quantitative measure of "natural product-likeness" by comparing atom-centered fragments and bonding patterns against known natural product structural space [15].

Additional classification is provided by the NPClassifier tool, which employs deep learning to categorize natural products according to their biosynthetic pathways based on structural features, source organism taxonomy, and reported biological activities [15]. This multi-dimensional classification system enables researchers to navigate natural product space not only by structural similarity but also by biosynthetic logic, creating bridges between chemical structures and their genetic origins. For the COCONUT database, this analysis revealed that 88% of the natural products received pathway classifications consistent with known biosynthetic categories, while the remainder may represent either novel biosynthetic classes or structures with synthetic modifications [15].

Table 2: Key Analytical Metrics for Natural Product Database Characterization

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Computational Method
Physicochemical Properties	Molecular weight, LogP, HBD, HBA, TPSA, rotatable bonds	RDKit
Structural Complexity	Number of chiral centers, fraction of sp3 carbons, molecular quadrature	RDKit-based calculations
Natural Product-Likeness	NP Score	Bayesian analysis of atom-centered fragments
Biosynthetic Classification	Pathway, superclass, class	NPClassifier deep learning model

Structural Evolution and Temporal Trends in Natural Products

Progressive Changes in Molecular Properties

Longitudinal analysis of natural product collections reveals distinctive trends in their structural and physicochemical properties over time. A comprehensive time-dependent chemoinformatic study examining natural products discovered between early documentation and recent additions found that NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over successive decades [2]. Specifically, molecular weight, molecular volume, and molecular surface area all show statistically significant increases, with recently discovered natural products being substantially larger than their early counterparts [2].

This trend toward increasing molecular size is accompanied by changes in ring systems and structural frameworks. The average numbers of rings, ring assemblies, and non-aromatic rings have gradually increased in natural products over time, while the number of aromatic rings has remained relatively constant [2]. This suggests that recently discovered natural products contain more complex, fused ring systems (including bridged and spiro rings) rather than simple aromatic systems. Additionally, the glycosylation ratio (proportion of glycosylated natural products) and the mean number of sugar rings in each glycoside have both increased over time, contributing to the overall growth in molecular size and complexity [2].

Expanding Chemical Space and Structural Diversity

The chemical space covered by natural products has expanded considerably as database sizes have grown. Projection of natural product structures into physicochemical descriptor spaces reveals that newer additions occupy regions previously sparsely populated, indicating that discovery efforts are continually revealing new structural archetypes rather than simply filling in gaps between known scaffolds [15] [2]. This expansion is particularly evident in the increasing proportion of natural products that fall outside the "drug-like" chemical space defined by traditional metrics such as Lipinski's Rule of Five, suggesting that nature explores chemical possibilities beyond those typically considered in synthetic medicinal chemistry [2].

Despite this expansion, natural products maintain a distinctive structural signature that differentiates them from synthetic compounds. Comparative analysis has demonstrated that natural products contain more oxygen atoms, more chiral centers, and higher overall stereochemical complexity than synthetic compound libraries [2]. They also tend to feature more diverse ring systems with higher degrees of fusion and incorporation of medium-to-large ring sizes, reflecting the biosynthetic processes that generate them. These structural characteristics have important implications for biological activity, as they often enable natural products to interact with complex binding sites that are difficult to target with flatter, more symmetric synthetic compounds [19].

Research Applications and Experimental Methodologies

Virtual Screening and In Silico Discovery Protocols

The availability of large-scale natural product databases has enabled sophisticated virtual screening workflows that leverage these collections for drug discovery. A typical protocol begins with the preparation of the natural product library through structure standardization, tautomer enumeration, and generation of 3D conformers using tools such as RDKit or Open Babel [17] [16]. This is followed by molecular docking against protein targets of interest using platforms like AutoDock Vina or GLIDE, with results evaluated based on docking scores, interaction patterns, and consistency with known active sites [17].

Advanced virtual screening approaches incorporate pharmacophore modeling and shape-based similarity searching to identify natural products that share key functional group arrangements or molecular shapes with known active compounds without requiring precise structural similarity [17]. These methods have proven particularly valuable for natural product screening because they can identify structurally unique compounds that nevertheless share the essential features required for binding to a particular target. For example, pharmacophore-based screening identified the natural products farnesiferol B and microlobidene as activators of the G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1), despite their scaffolds being previously unassociated with this target [17].

Cheminformatic Analysis and Chemical Space Visualization

Systematic analysis of natural product databases employs a standardized set of computational techniques to extract meaningful patterns from structural data. The foundational methodology involves calculating molecular descriptors including molecular weight, LogP, topological polar surface area, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, and rotatable bonds to characterize the physicochemical properties of the collection [17]. These descriptors are then visualized using techniques such as principal component analysis (PCA) or t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) to project the high-dimensional chemical space into two or three dimensions for intuitive exploration [15] [17].

Scaffold analysis provides complementary information by focusing on the core structural frameworks rather than complete molecules. The Bemis-Murcko approach decomposes natural products into their ring systems and linkers, enabling quantification of scaffold diversity and identification of privileged structural motifs that recur across multiple natural products with different biological activities [2]. For natural products specifically, scaffold analysis has revealed that they contain more aliphatic rings and fewer heteroatoms (except oxygen) compared to synthetic compounds, reflecting their distinct biosynthetic origins [2].

Diagram Title: Natural Product Database Analysis Workflow

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Natural Product Database Analysis

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
COCONUT Database	Database	Comprehensive NP collection	Primary data source for analysis
RDKit	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation, scaffold decomposition	Property profiling, structural analysis
ChEMBL Curation Pipeline	Standardization Protocol	Structure validation and standardization	Data preprocessing
NP Score	Algorithm	Quantification of natural product-likeness	Compound prioritization
NPClassifier	Classification Tool	Biosynthetic pathway assignment	Structural categorization
t-SNE	Visualization Algorithm	Dimensionality reduction for chemical space mapping	Data visualization
Bemis-Murcko Method	Analytical Approach	Scaffold extraction from molecular structures	Diversity analysis

The compilation of over 400,000 non-redundant natural products in open collections represents both a remarkable achievement and a foundation for future research. These databases capture the extraordinary structural diversity evolved in nature, providing an expanding resource for drug discovery and chemical biology. The quantitative analysis of these collections reveals clear temporal trends toward larger, more complex molecular architectures while maintaining the distinctive structural features that differentiate natural products from synthetic compounds.

Looking forward, several developments promise to further expand and enhance natural product databases. The application of deep generative models has already demonstrated the potential to create virtual libraries of natural product-like structures that significantly expand beyond known compounds, with one recent effort generating 67 million natural product-like molecules - a 165-fold expansion of known natural product space [15]. As these computational approaches mature, they will likely guide targeted discovery efforts toward the most promising regions of unexplored chemical space. Additionally, continued advances in structure elucidation technologies, particularly computational prediction of NMR spectra and cryo-electron microscopy for natural product biosynthesis enzymes, will accelerate the rate of structural characterization while reducing error rates [18] [20]. Together, these developments suggest that the next decade will witness not only quantitative growth in natural product databases but also qualitative improvements in their accuracy, annotation depth, and integration with biological context.

Leveraging Database Infrastructure for Modern Drug Discovery Workflows

The identification of novel bioactive compounds is a cornerstone of drug discovery, and in this pursuit, natural products (NPs) have historically been indispensable. NPs are essential reservoirs of innovative drug discovery, with an estimated 68% of approved small-molecule drugs between 1981 and 2019 being directly or indirectly derived from them [2]. The high biological relevance of NPs is attributed to their co-evolution with proteins, resulting in structures pre-validated by nature to interact with biological macromolecules [19]. However, the exploration of NP chemical space has been transformed by digital technologies. While only approximately 400,000 NPs have been fully characterized, recent advances in deep generative modeling have enabled the creation of virtual libraries containing tens of millions of NP-like structures, representing an unprecedented expansion of accessible bioactive chemical space [15]. This evolution from physical compound collections to vast in silico databases has fundamentally enhanced their utility in virtual screening campaigns.

This guide objectively compares the performance of NP databases against other chemical libraries in virtual screening, providing researchers with a clear framework for database selection. We situate this comparison within the broader thesis of structural evolution, examining how the temporal trends in NP discovery—such as the trend towards larger, more complex structures over time—influence their current application in computational drug discovery [2].

Structural Evolution and Key Characteristics of NP Databases

Temporal Trends in NP Structural Properties

A time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis reveals that the structural characteristics of NPs have evolved significantly. Compared to synthetic compounds (SCs), NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, exhibiting increased structural diversity and uniqueness [2]. This evolution is summarized in the table below, which compares key physicochemical properties.

Table 1: Time-Dependent Comparison of Key Structural Properties between Natural Products (NPs) and Synthetic Compounds (SCs)

Physicochemical Property	Trend in NPs Over Time	Trend in SCs Over Time	Comparative Note
Molecular Size (e.g., Weight, Volume)	Consistent increase	Variation within a limited, drug-like range	NPs are generally larger than SCs, a trend that has become more pronounced [2].
Structural Complexity (e.g., Number of Rings)	Gradual increase	Moderate increase, with a focus on aromatic rings	NPs possess more rings but fewer ring assemblies, indicating bigger fused rings [2].
Aromatic Rings	Little change over time	Clearly increasing, with constantly high six-membered rings	SCs are distinguished by a greater involvement of aromatic rings [2].
Non-Aromatic Rings	Gradual increase	Little change	Most rings in NPs are non-aromatic [2].
Glycosylation	Increasing ratio and sugar ring count	Not typically a major feature	Suggests recently discovered NPs are more complex [2].
Hydrophobicity	Increasing over time	Governed by drug-like constraints	-
Overall Chemical Space	Becoming less concentrated and more diverse	Broader synthetic diversity, but declining biological relevance	The structural evolution of SCs is influenced by NPs but has not fully evolved in their direction [2].

Defining Modern NP and NP-Like Databases

The term "NP database" now encompasses a spectrum of resources, from collections of authentic natural products to AI-generated virtual libraries.

• Curated Databases of Known NPs: These include resources like the Dictionary of Natural Products and the COCONUT (Collection of Open Natural Products) database, which contain hundreds of thousands of characterized natural products [2] [15]. These provide the foundational data for understanding NP chemical space.
• AI-Generated NP-Like Libraries: Leveraging deep generative models trained on known NPs, these databases offer a massive expansion of NP-like chemical space. For instance, one publicly available database uses a recurrent neural network (RNN) to generate over 67 million valid, unique, natural product-like molecules, a 165-fold expansion over known NPs [15]. These molecules closely resemble the natural product-likeness score distribution of known NPs while exploring novel physiochemical and structural regions [15].
• Pseudo-Natural Product (pseudo-NP) Libraries: This design principle involves the unprecedented recombination of NP fragments to explore biological space beyond guiding NPs. The resulting pseudo-NPs are synthetically tractable compounds that inherit biological relevance while accessing unprecedented chemical space, representing a form of chemical evolution of NP structures [19].

Comparative Performance in Virtual Screening

Virtual screening (VS) performance is highly dependent on the target and the chemical library used. The following experimental data highlights how NP-derived libraries can offer distinct advantages, particularly for challenging targets.

Case Study: Targeting Protein-Protein Interactions (PPIs)

Protein-protein interactions are notoriously difficult to target with small molecules due to their large, shallow interfaces. NP libraries have demonstrated exceptional performance in this area.

In a prospective virtual screening study against the SH2 domain of STAT3, a relevant PPI-type oncotarget, two distinct approaches were compared [21]:

• AI-Based uHTVS: An ultra-high-throughput virtual screen of an ultralarge synthetic library (Enamine REAL, 5.51 billion compounds) using the Deep Docking workflow.
• Knowledge-Based Approach: A "traditional" brute-force virtual screen of a natural product library containing 193,757 compounds.

Table 2: Virtual Screening Performance Against STAT3-SH2 Domain

Screening Strategy	Library Type	Library Size	Hit Rate
AI-Based uHTVS	Synthetic (Make-on-demand)	5.51 Billion	50.0%
Knowledge-Based	Natural Product Library	~194,000	42.9%
Knowledge-Based	SH2 Domain Targeted Library	~1,800	Not Disclosed

The results show that the NP library achieved a remarkably high hit rate of 42.9%, competitive with the AI-driven screen of a vastly larger synthetic library. This underscores the high "biologically relevant" quality and structural complementarity of NPs for complex targets like PPIs. The study authors noted that the increased 3D-likeness and complexity of natural products represents a powerful knowledge-based option for identifying hits against PPI targets [21].

Cheminformatic Basis for Performance

The superior performance of NP databases in certain screening contexts is rooted in their fundamental structural characteristics, which differ significantly from those of typical synthetic compounds.

• Enhanced Complexity and 3D-Shape: NPs generally have more non-aromatic rings and higher stereochemical complexity than SCs. This results in more three-dimensional, "globular" structures that are better suited to binding the complex surfaces of many therapeutic targets, especially PPIs [2] [21].
• Fragment and Substituent Differences: The molecular fragments and side chains in NPs are distinct. They contain more oxygen atoms, stereocenters, and fewer nitrogen or sulfur atoms compared to the substituents of SCs, which are rich in nitrogen, sulfur, halogens, and aromatic rings [2]. This influences drug-likeness and binding interactions.
• Coverage of Privileged Chemical Space: NPs occupy a region of chemical space that is often under-represented in synthetic libraries. Cheminformatic analyses confirm that NPs and pseudo-NPs exhibit high NP-likeness scores and cover a diverse and unique chemical space that overlaps with biologically relevant regions [15] [19].

Essential Protocols for Virtual Screening with NP Databases

Standard Workflow for NP Database Screening

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for conducting a virtual screen using an NP database, integrating steps from cited experimental protocols.

Virtual Screening Workflow with NP Databases

Detailed Methodological Breakdown

A. Library Curation and Preparation (Based on [21] [15])

• Data Retrieval: Obtain SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) or structure data files from public NP databases (e.g., COCONUT) or commercial suppliers.
• Chemical Standardization: Process structures using a standardized pipeline, such as the ChEMBL chemical curation pipeline, to check for validity, remove duplicates, de-salt, and generate canonical representations [15].
• Filtering: Apply filters to remove compounds with undesirable properties. A critical step is the removal of Pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS) to minimize false positives [21].
• Descriptor Calculation: Use toolkits like RDKit to calculate key physicochemical properties (e.g., molecular weight, logP, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, rotatable bonds) for library characterization [15].

B. Molecular Docking and Hit Identification (Based on [21])

• Target Preparation: Select a high-quality X-ray crystal structure of the protein target. Prepare the structure by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning partial charges, and defining the binding site.
• Retrospective Validation (Optional but Recommended): Perform a control docking with a small set of known actives and decoy molecules to calculate performance metrics like the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) and Enrichment Factor (EF). This validates the docking protocol for your specific target [21].
• High-Throughput Docking: Execute the docking run against the prepared and filtered NP library. For ultra-large libraries, consider AI-accelerated workflows like Deep Docking to reduce computational cost [21].
• Hit Selection: Rank compounds based on docking scores and inspect the top-ranking compounds visually to assess the quality of binding poses and protein-ligand interactions before selecting a final shortlist for experimental testing.

Table 3: Essential Resources for NP-Based Virtual Screening

Resource / Reagent	Type	Primary Function in VS	Example Sources / Tools
Curated NP Databases	Data Repository	Provides authentic, characterized natural product structures for screening.	COCONUT, Dictionary of Natural Products [2] [15]
Generative AI Models	Software/Algorithm	Expands NP chemical space by generating novel, NP-like virtual compounds.	SMILES-based RNN/LSTM [15]
Cheminformatics Toolkits	Software Library	Handles chemical data standardization, descriptor calculation, and analysis.	RDKit [15]
Docking Software	Software Suite	Predicts binding poses and affinity of database compounds against a protein target.	AutoDock Vina, Glide, GOLD [21]
PAINS Filter	Computational Filter	Identifies and removes compounds with known promiscuous, assay-interfering motifs.	Various implementations in RDKit/KNIME [21]
Pseudo-NP Design Principle	Conceptual Framework	Guides synthesis of novel, biologically relevant compounds by recombining NP fragments.	- [19]

The integration of natural product databases into virtual screening workflows provides a powerful and complementary strategy to synthetic library screening. The unique structural evolution of NPs—toward greater complexity and three-dimensionality—makes their chemical space particularly valuable for targeting challenging mechanisms like protein-protein interactions, as evidenced by high virtual screening hit rates [2] [21].

The future of NP-powered virtual screening lies in the continued expansion and intelligent exploitation of NP-like chemical space. Trends point towards the increased use of deep generative models to create vast virtual libraries that retain the biological relevance of NPs while exploring unprecedented structural regions [15]. Furthermore, the pseudo-NP concept, which involves the synthetic recombination of NP fragments, represents a powerful form of "chemical evolution" for creating high-quality screening libraries that bridge the gap between natural inspiration and synthetic feasibility [19]. As these computational and synthetic strategies mature, they will further solidify the role of natural product-informed databases as indispensable tools for in silico lead identification.

The landscape of natural product (NP) research has undergone a profound transformation, shifting from a primary focus on chemical structures toward an integrated paradigm that incorporates rich metadata on biosynthetic pathways, biological targets, and mechanisms of action [22] [23]. This evolution reflects the growing recognition that the true value of NPs in drug discovery lies not merely in their structural complexity but in understanding their biosynthetic origins and functional interactions within biological systems [12] [2]. The emergence of large-scale multi-omics technologies and sophisticated computational tools has accelerated this transition, generating unprecedented amounts of data that enable researchers to connect NP structures with their genetic blueprints and pharmacological activities [24] [23].

The temporal trends in NP database development reveal a continuous expansion in both the scope and scale of annotated information. Early databases primarily served as repositories for chemical structures and basic source organism metadata [9]. Contemporary resources now integrate diverse data types including genomic loci of biosynthetic gene clusters, enzyme functions, transcriptomic co-expression patterns, metabolic network contexts, protein targets, and disease associations [22] [24]. This metadata integration has transformed NP databases from passive reference tools into active platforms for hypothesis generation and predictive biosynthetic engineering [25] [23].

Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Databases

The current ecosystem of NP databases can be categorized into several functional classes based on their primary content focus and application scope. Table 1 provides a systematic comparison of representative databases across key metadata dimensions.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Database Metadata Coverage

Database	Primary Focus	Biosynthetic Pathway Data	Target & Mechanism Data	Structural Annotations	Temporal Trends
COCONUT	General NP Collection	Limited	Limited	Structures, sparse annotations	Largest open collection (400,000+ NPs) [12]
NPAtlas	Natural Products	Curated structures, sources, bioactivity	Annotated bioactivity data	Manually curated natural products	Focus on drug discovery [22]
LOTUS	Natural Products	Chemical, taxonomic, spectral data		Integrated chemical, taxonomic, spectral data	Accelerates metabolomics research [22]
TCM Database@Taiwan	Traditional Medicine			61,000 compounds, 453 herbs	Virtual screening for CADD [9]
TCMID	Traditional Medicine		Target proteins, disease associations	25,210 compounds, 8,159 herbs	Bridges TCM and modern medicine [9]
CEMTDD	Ethnic Medicine	Active compounds, targeted proteins	Target proteins, mechanisms	Herb-compound-target-disease networks	Focus on Chinese minority herbs [9]
SuperNatural	Various Sources			Large comprehensive collection	Fingerprint similarity search [9]
KEGG	Metabolic Pathways	Pathway maps, enzyme functions	Disease pathways, drug targets	Compound structures, reactions	Systems biology resource [22]
MetaCyc	Metabolic Pathways	Biochemical pathways, enzymes		Metabolic pathways, enzymes	Metabolic diversity studies [22]
DrugBank	Drug Metabolism	Drug metabolic pathways	Target interactions, pharmacology	Drug structures, combinations	Pharmaceutical research [22]

Metadata Integration and Accessibility

The integration of biosynthetic pathway information represents a significant advancement in modern NP databases. Specialized resources such as KEGG and MetaCyc provide comprehensive pathway annotations that connect NPs to their biosynthetic origins through enzyme-catalyzed reaction networks [22]. These databases enable researchers to trace the metabolic routes through which NPs are synthesized in native organisms, facilitating the identification of key enzymatic steps that can be targeted for genetic manipulation or heterologous expression [24] [23].

The incorporation of target and mechanism-of-action metadata has similarly expanded the utility of NP databases for drug discovery. As illustrated in Table 1, databases like DrugBank and TCMID integrate information on protein targets, disease associations, and pharmacological effects, creating valuable bridges between traditional knowledge systems and modern molecular medicine [22] [9]. This integration enables researchers to develop mechanistic hypotheses about how NPs exert their biological effects, guiding subsequent experimental validation [26].

The accessibility and interoperability of database metadata remain challenging despite these advancements. Many databases employ distinct annotation standards and data formats, creating barriers to seamless data integration [12] [1]. The FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles have emerged as a critical framework for addressing these challenges, promoting standardized metadata practices that enhance data sharing and reuse across the research community [23].

Methodologies for Biosynthetic Pathway Elucidation

Experimental Workflows for Pathway Discovery

The elucidation of biosynthetic pathways relies on integrated experimental workflows that combine genomic, transcriptomic, and metabolomic data. Figure 1 illustrates a generalized pathway discovery pipeline that has been successfully applied to numerous NP biosynthetic systems.

Figure 1: Integrated Workflow for Biosynthetic Pathway Elucidation. This pipeline combines multi-omics data to identify and validate genes involved in natural product biosynthesis.

The pathway discovery process typically begins with sample collection from relevant plant tissues or microbial cultures under conditions that induce NP production [24]. Genomic DNA is extracted for high-quality sequencing and assembly, while RNA samples are subjected to transcriptome sequencing to profile gene expression patterns [23]. Concurrently, metabolites are extracted and analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy to characterize the NP profile [24].

Bioinformatic analysis integrates these data streams to identify candidate biosynthetic genes. Genomic data is mined using tools such as plantiSMASH, which employs plant-specific profile Hidden Markov Models (pHMMs) to identify biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) [24]. Transcriptomic co-expression analysis correlates gene expression patterns with metabolite abundance across different samples, identifying genes that show coordinated regulation with NP accumulation [24] [23]. Candidate genes selected through these computational approaches are then functionally validated through heterologous expression in systems such as Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or Nicotiana benthamiana, followed by biochemical characterization of the recombinant enzymes [23].

Target Deconvolution Methodologies

Understanding the mechanisms of action of bioactive NPs requires rigorous target identification approaches. Table 2 compares the primary experimental methods used for target deconvolution in phenotypic drug discovery.

Table 2: Experimental Methodologies for Target Deconvolution of Natural Products

Method	Principle	Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Affinity Purification	Immobilized compound captures binding proteins from cell lysates	Identification of soluble protein targets	Works for diverse target classes; provides dose-response data	Requires high-affinity probe; immobilization may affect binding [26]
Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP)	Bifunctional probes covalently label active sites	Enzyme targets with reactive residues	Direct profiling of enzyme activities; proteome-wide application	Limited to enzymes with reactive residues [26]
Photoaffinity Labeling (PAL)	Photoreactive probes form covalent bonds with targets upon UV exposure	Membrane proteins; transient interactions	Captures weak/transient interactions; suitable for membrane proteins	Probe design complex; potential for non-specific binding [26]
Cellular Thermal Shift Assay (CETSA)	Ligand binding increases protein thermal stability	Target engagement in intact cells	Works in physiological conditions; no chemical modification needed	Challenging for low-abundance and membrane proteins [27] [26]
Solvent-Induced Denaturation Shift	Ligand binding alters protein stability during denaturation	Proteome-wide target identification	Label-free; native conditions	Difficult for membrane proteins and low-abundance targets [26]

The selection of appropriate target deconvolution strategies depends on the specific characteristics of the NP and the biological system under investigation. Affinity-based methods require chemical modification of the NP to introduce affinity tags, which may alter its bioactivity or binding properties [26]. Label-free approaches such as CETSA and solvent-induced denaturation preserve the native structure of the NP but may have limited sensitivity for low-abundance targets [27]. Integrated strategies that combine multiple complementary techniques often provide the most comprehensive insights into NP mechanism of action [26].

Computational Tools and Databases

Modern NP research relies on a diverse array of computational resources for data analysis and hypothesis generation. Table 3 catalogues essential tools and databases that support biosynthetic pathway elucidation and mechanism of action studies.

Table 3: Essential Computational Resources for Natural Products Research

Resource	Type	Function	Application Context
plantiSMASH	Software	Identifies biosynthetic gene clusters in plant genomes	Plant pathway discovery; cluster prediction [24]
AntiSMASH	Software	Detects BGCs in microbial genomes	Microbial natural product discovery [25]
OrthoFinder	Software	Infers orthologous groups and gene families	Comparative genomics; gene family analysis [23]
AlphaFold DB	Database	Protein structure predictions	Enzyme structure-function analysis [22]
UniProt	Database	Protein sequence and functional information	Enzyme annotation; functional prediction [22]
BRENDA	Database	Enzyme functional data	Enzyme kinetics; substrate specificity [22]
Rhea	Database	Biochemical reactions	Reaction mechanism analysis [22]
PubChem	Database	Chemical structures and bioactivities	Compound identification; bioactivity data [22]
ChEBI	Database	Chemical entities of biological interest	Compound classification; ontology [22]
ChEMBL	Database	Bioactive drug-like molecules	Structure-activity relationships [22]

Experimental Reagents and Platforms

Beyond computational resources, contemporary NP research utilizes specialized experimental platforms for functional validation and characterization. The Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression system in Nicotiana benthamiana enables rapid functional characterization of plant biosynthetic enzymes through co-infiltration of multiple candidate genes [23]. Heterologous expression hosts including Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Streptomyces species provide customizable platforms for reconstituting and optimizing NP biosynthetic pathways [25] [23].

Advanced analytical instrumentation forms another critical component of the NP research toolkit. High-resolution mass spectrometry systems enable sensitive detection and structural characterization of NPs and their biosynthetic intermediates [24]. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy provides detailed information about molecular structure and stereochemistry [2]. Liquid chromatography systems coupled with both detection modalities (LC-MS and LC-NMR) facilitate the separation and identification of complex NP mixtures from biological extracts [24].

For target identification studies, chemical proteomics platforms represent essential experimental resources. Mass spectrometry instrumentation with high sequencing depth and rapid scan rates enables comprehensive identification of proteins captured through affinity purification or labeled with activity-based probes [26]. Cellular thermal shift assays require precise temperature control systems and sensitive protein detection methods to quantify ligand-induced stabilization of target proteins [27] [26].

Temporal Trends and Future Perspectives

The structural evolution of NP databases reflects a continuous trajectory toward greater integration of biosynthetic and functional metadata. Early databases primarily catalogued chemical structures and source organisms, while contemporary resources incorporate extensive information about biosynthetic pathways, protein targets, and biological activities [22] [9]. This evolution has transformed NP databases from static repositories into dynamic platforms for predictive biosynthetic engineering and mechanism-based drug discovery [25] [23].

Temporal analyses of NP structural characteristics reveal significant trends in compound complexity and properties. Recent studies demonstrate that newly discovered NPs have become larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, exhibiting increased structural diversity and uniqueness compared to synthetic compounds [2]. This expanding chemical diversity presents both opportunities and challenges for drug discovery, as more complex structures may offer novel bioactivities but also present greater synthetic challenges [2].

Future developments in NP database technology will likely focus on enhanced integration of multi-omics data, application of artificial intelligence and machine learning methods, and implementation of more sophisticated data visualization and mining tools [23]. The adoption of standardized metadata annotations using community-developed ontologies will improve interoperability between databases, facilitating more comprehensive meta-analyses across multiple resources [12] [23]. Additionally, the development of more powerful predictive algorithms will enable researchers to connect NP structures with their biosynthetic origins and biological functions, accelerating the discovery and engineering of novel bioactive compounds [22] [25].

The continuing evolution of NP databases toward deeper integration of biosynthetic pathways, biological targets, and mechanisms of action will play a critical role in realizing the full potential of natural products as sources of therapeutic agents and biochemical tools. By connecting chemical structures with their genetic blueprints and functional interactions, these enhanced resources will facilitate more efficient exploration of nature's chemical diversity and its application to addressing unmet medical needs.

Natural products (NPs) and their structural analogues have historically made a major contribution to pharmacotherapy, particularly for cancer and infectious diseases, representing between 50-70% of all small-molecule therapeutics in clinical use [28] [20]. However, the field faced significant challenges in the 1990s, including technical barriers to screening, isolation, characterization, and optimization, which led to a decline in pharmaceutical industry pursuit [29]. In recent years, technological and scientific developments—including improved analytical tools, genome mining, engineering strategies, and microbial culturing advances—have revitalized interest in natural products as drug leads [29]. This case study examines how modern natural product databases have become indispensable tools in contemporary drug discovery, enabling researchers to navigate the complex chemical space of natural compounds while addressing historical challenges such as rediscovery and characterization bottlenecks.

The perception that fundamental novelty in natural product discovery is decreasing has been quantitatively examined through comprehensive analysis of published microbial and marine-derived natural products from 1941-2015 [28]. This analysis revealed that while most natural products published today bear structural similarity to previously published compounds, the field continues to discover appreciable numbers of natural products with no structural precedent, suggesting that innovative discovery methods continue to yield compounds with unique structural and biological properties [28]. This paradox highlights the importance of sophisticated database tools that can help researchers identify truly novel scaffolds amid the growing volume of natural product data.

Temporal Trends in Natural Product Discovery

Quantitative Analysis of Structural Novelty Over Time

Retrospective analysis of natural product discovery from 1941-2015 provides critical insights into the evolving landscape of structural novelty and diversity. The number of compounds published annually has increased dramatically from relatively few in the 1940s to an average of approximately 1,600 per year over recent decades [28]. This growth peaked from the 1970s through the mid-1990s and has remained relatively constant since, despite the pharmaceutical industry's reduced direct involvement in natural products research [28].

Table 1: Temporal Trends in Natural Product Discovery (1941-2015)

Time Period	Average Annual Compounds Published	Median Structural Similarity (Tanimoto Score)	Key Technological Influences
1940s-1950s	Few	Low (Baseline)	Basic chromatography, limited spectroscopy
1960s-1970s	Rapid growth	Increasing similarity	Improved separation methods
1980s-1990s	~1,600/year	Plateau at ~0.65	Advent of 2D NMR, HPLC, LC-MS
2000s-2010s	~1,600/year	Stable at ~0.65	Genomics, high-throughput screening

The structural novelty analysis using Tanimoto similarity scores reveals a telling trend: median maximum similarity scores increased rapidly from the 1950s to 1970s, tapering during the 1980s and 1990s to reach a plateau at approximately 0.65 by the mid-1990s, where it remains today [28]. This plateau suggests that while the range of readily accessible natural scaffolds may be limited, the field continues to discover fundamentally unique molecules with unprecedented structural and functional attributes when employing innovative discovery methods [28].

The Rediscovery Challenge and Database Solutions

The increasing challenge of rediscovering known natural product structures has prompted the development of sophisticated database tools with enhanced dereplication capabilities. Modern NP databases address this challenge through several key approaches:

• Chemical similarity searching using Tanimoto coefficients and other similarity metrics to identify known compounds quickly [30]
• Multi-dimensional filtering that incorporates taxonomic, geographic, and ecological data to prioritize novel sources [28]
• Automated structure elucidation tools that compare new isolates against comprehensive spectral libraries [29]
• Integrative metadata analysis that connects structural features with biological activity and source organism characteristics [31]

The practical impact of these tools is significant—while structurally unique compounds represent a decreasing percentage of the total number of natural products isolated from natural sources, the absolute number of molecules with low similarities to known compounds remains substantial, demonstrating that chemical novelty persists despite the increasing challenge of finding it [28].

Comparative Analysis of Leading Natural Product Databases

Database Architectures and Functional Capabilities

Contemporary natural product databases have evolved from simple structural repositories to sophisticated platforms integrating multiple data types and analytical tools. The leading databases employ diverse strategies to support drug discovery campaigns, each with distinctive strengths and specializations.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Databases for Drug Discovery

Database	Size (Compounds)	Key Features	Specialized Applications	Target Prediction	Machine Learning Capabilities
SuperNatural 3.0	449,058	Vendor information, toxicity prediction, mechanism of action	Taste profiling, CNS-targeted libraries	Yes (similarity-based)	Virtual screening models
InflamNat	1,351	Cell-based anti-inflammatory bioactivity data, target relationships	Anti-inflammatory activity prediction	Yes (MTT model)	Dedicated anti-inflammatory activity predictor
AntiMarin	Not specified	Marine and microbial compounds (1941-2011)	Historical trend analysis	Limited	Not implemented

SuperNatural 3.0 exemplifies the modern approach to NP databases, offering not only extensive structural information but also additional critical data layers including vendor availability, predicted toxicity, mechanism of action analysis, and targeted libraries for specific disease areas [30]. Its comprehensive search capabilities—including name/ID searching, property-based filtering, similarity searching, and substructure searching—make it particularly valuable for early-stage discovery when researchers need to quickly assess the novelty and potential developability of candidate compounds [30].

InflamNat represents a specialized database approach, focusing specifically on anti-inflammatory natural products with well-curated bioactivity data from cell-based assays [31]. Its distinctive value lies in the quality and consistency of its activity data, with compounds classified as ACTIVE or INACTIVE based on standardized criteria (IC50/EC50 < 50 μM for ACTIVE) [31]. This specialized focus demonstrates how targeted databases can overcome the data quality limitations of broader repositories when investigating specific therapeutic areas.

Experimental Validation and Predictive Performance

The practical utility of NP databases depends heavily on the accuracy of their predictive tools and the reliability of their underlying data. InflamNat's machine learning-based predictive tools have demonstrated robust performance, achieving an AUC value of 0.842 for predicting anti-inflammatory activity and 0.872 for predicting compound-target interactions [31]. This performance stems from its novel Multi-Tokenization Transformer model (MTT), which employs various sequence tokenization approaches and multiple transformers to obtain high-quality representation of sequential data [31].

The experimental protocols for validating database predictions typically involve:

• Data Curation and Standardization: InflamNat collected structures and cellular anti-inflammatory activities from 319 research articles published between 2000-2020, with strict inclusion criteria requiring assays in inflammatory cell models and measurement of specific inflammatory factors with cytotoxicity data [31].

• Feature Representation: Using RDKit for determining molecular properties (MW, ALogP, TPSA, HBD, HBA, RotB) and generating molecular fingerprints for similarity calculations [31] [30].

• Model Training and Validation: Implementing novel architectures like the MTT model that uses multiple tokenizers to process SMILES strings and amino acid sequences, with self-attention mechanisms to weight different tokenizations [31].

• Experimental Confirmation: For SuperNatural 3.0, incorporating data from ChEMBL with filtering for highly accurate direct interactions between small molecules and human proteins, ensuring reliable mechanism-of-action predictions [30].

Integrated Workflow for Database-Driven Natural Product Discovery

The contemporary natural product discovery pipeline has evolved into a sophisticated, integrated workflow that combines computational database mining with experimental validation. The following diagram illustrates this unified approach:

Database-Driven Natural Product Discovery Workflow

Database Screening and Dereplication Protocols

The initial screening phase employs multiple computational strategies to prioritize candidates with the highest potential for novelty and bioactivity:

• Similarity Searching: Using Tanimoto coefficients with ECFP4 fingerprints to identify structural neighbors and assess novelty [30]. The Tanimoto coefficient serves as the similarity measure, with a value of 1 indicating identical structures [30].

• Substructure Filtering: Searching for specific pharmacophores or privileged scaffolds associated with desired bioactivities [30].

• Property-Based Screening: Applying filters for drug-like properties including molecular weight, logP, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors, and polar surface area [30].

• Taxonomic Prioritization: Leveraging the correlation between novel taxonomic sources and structural novelty—analysis has demonstrated that exploring novel taxonomic space provides an advantage in terms of novel compound discovery [28].

The dereplication process represents a critical step to avoid rediscovery, implementing automated comparison of candidate compounds against comprehensive database entries using both structural and spectral data [29] [30]. Advanced platforms like SuperNatural 3.0 facilitate this process by integrating vendor information, allowing researchers to quickly obtain known compounds for bioactivity comparison rather than proceeding with costly isolation efforts [30].

Target Identification and Validation Mechanisms

Modern NP databases incorporate sophisticated target prediction capabilities that significantly accelerate the mechanism of action studies:

• Chemical Similarity-Based Prediction: SuperNatural 3.0 implements this approach by comparing query compounds to bioactive molecules in the ChEMBL database, identifying the five most similar structures with known target interactions [30].

• Machine Learning Models: InflamNat's MTT-based predictor uses SMILES strings and protein sequences to predict compound-target relationships with high accuracy (AUC 0.872) [31].

• Pathway Mapping: SuperNatural 3.0 incorporates pathway analysis based on KEGG database mappings, connecting compound targets to disease-relevant biological pathways [30].

The experimental validation of predicted targets typically involves cellular models relevant to the therapeutic area. For anti-inflammatory natural products in InflamNat, this includes assays in macrophages measuring production of nitric oxide (NO), PGE2, and cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12, TNFα) with parallel cytotoxicity assessment [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Solutions

Successful database-driven natural product discovery relies on a suite of specialized tools and resources that enable researchers to navigate from initial compound identification to validated lead candidates.

Table 3: Essential Research Solutions for NP Database-Driven Discovery

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function in Workflow	Key Features
Database Platforms	SuperNatural 3.0, InflamNat, AntiMarin	Initial screening & dereplication	Curated compound data, vendor information, activity data
Cheminformatics	RDKit, ChemAxon	Property calculation, similarity searching	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation
Bioactivity Prediction	InflamNat MTT Model, SuperNatural MoA	Target & activity prediction	Machine learning-based bioactivity classification
Analytical Tools	HPLC-HRMS, NMR, LC-MS	Compound characterization & validation	Structural elucidation, purity assessment
Data Integration	KNIME, Pipeline Pilot	Workflow automation	Multi-database querying, data aggregation
Cycleanine	Cycleanine|PARP1 Inhibitor|For Cancer Research		Bench Chemicals
Dehydroevodiamine	Dehydroevodiamine, CAS:67909-49-3, MF:C19H15N3O, MW:301.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The integration of these tools creates a powerful ecosystem for natural product research. RDKit, employed by both SuperNatural 3.0 and InflamNat, provides critical cheminformatics capabilities including molecular property calculation (MW, LogP, TPSA, HBD, HBA), fingerprint generation for similarity searching, and substructure analysis [31] [30]. For bioactivity prediction, the Multi-Tokenization Transformer model used by InflamNat represents a significant advancement over conventional methods by employing multiple tokenization approaches for SMILES strings and amino acid sequences, with self-attention mechanisms to weight different tokenizations [31].

Advanced analytical technologies including HPLC-HRMS and NMR remain essential for experimental validation, with recent developments focused on accelerating metabolite identification through ideal combinations of liquid chromatography–high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry and NMR profiling, complemented by in silico databases and chemometrics [29]. These analytical platforms provide the critical link between computational predictions and experimental confirmation in the natural product discovery pipeline.

Natural product databases have evolved from static repositories into dynamic, intelligent platforms that actively drive discovery campaigns through predictive modeling and integrative data analysis. The quantitative analysis of temporal trends reveals both challenges and opportunities—while structural novelty as a percentage of total discoveries has decreased, the absolute number of novel scaffolds remains substantial, particularly when exploring untapped taxonomic space [28]. The key to accessing this remaining chemical diversity lies in the continued development of sophisticated database tools that can connect chemical structures with biological activity, source organism information, and biosynthetic insights.

The future of database-driven natural product discovery will likely be shaped by several emerging trends. First, the integration of genomic and metabolomic data will enable more targeted discovery of compounds from specific biosynthetic pathways [29] [25]. Second, advances in machine learning, particularly deep learning architectures for molecular representation, will enhance the accuracy of bioactivity and target prediction [31]. Finally, the development of more specialized databases focused on specific therapeutic areas or compound classes will provide the curated, high-quality data needed for targeted drug discovery campaigns [31]. As these trends converge, natural product databases will become increasingly indispensable in the quest to unlock nature's remaining chemical treasures for therapeutic development.

The field of systems pharmacology demands a holistic understanding of the complex interactions between chemical compounds, their protein targets, and disease pathways. Knowledge graphs (KGs) have emerged as a pivotal technology for integrating these disparate biological data domains into a unified, queryable model. A knowledge graph is a graphical data model that organizes information by connecting data points (entities) through meaningful relationships, creating a structured representation of knowledge [32] [33]. In the specific context of systems pharmacology, this translates to a powerful framework where nodes represent entities such as natural products, synthetic compounds, protein targets, and diseases, while edges define the relationships between them—for instance, which compound modulates which target, and how that target is implicated in a disease pathway [34].

This approach is particularly transformative when framed within the broader thesis of structural evolution and temporal trends in natural product (NP) databases. Comprehensive chemoinformatic analyses reveal that NPs have historically served as a wellspring for innovative drugs, guiding the synthesis of numerous medications [35]. Despite this, a significant challenge persists: the landscape of NP data is highly fragmented. A recent review identified over 120 different NP databases and collections published since 2000, with only 50 being open access and of varying quality and maintenance status [1] [12]. This fragmentation, coupled with the finding that the structural evolution of synthetic compounds (SCs) is influenced by NPs but has not fully evolved in their direction, creates a critical need for integrative technologies [35]. Knowledge graphs directly address this by enabling the fusion of these massive, evolving chemical datasets with biomedical knowledge, thereby accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutic hypotheses and clarifying the temporal structural relationships between natural and synthetic molecules.

Comparative Analysis of Knowledge Graph Platforms for Pharmacological Research

Selecting the appropriate technological platform is fundamental to constructing an effective systems pharmacology knowledge graph. The ideal platform must handle the scale and complexity of biological data while supporting sophisticated reasoning and querying. Below, we compare leading graph databases and platforms based on key performance metrics and features critical for biomedical research.

Table 1: Feature Comparison of Leading Knowledge Graph Platforms

Platform	Primary Graph Model	Key Strengths	Reasoning Capabilities	Best Suited For
Stardog [36]	Multi-model (Property Graph & RDF)	High-performance reasoning at query time; Federated virtual graphs	Strong ontological reasoning	Enterprise-scale data integration with complex logic
AWS Neptune [37]	Property Graph & RDF (separate clusters)	Fully managed AWS service; High availability	Limited, often requires pre-materialization	AWS-centric deployments needing a managed service
TigerGraph [37]	Property Graph	Real-time deep link analysis; Horizontal scalability	Native support for advanced pattern matching	Fraud detection and complex relationship mining
Neo4j [37]	Property Graph	Mature ecosystem; Cypher query language	Requires external tooling for formal reasoning	General-purpose graph applications with a large community
PuppyGraph [37]	Graph Query Engine (on relational data)	Queries existing relational DBs without ETL	Dependent on underlying data model	Rapid prototyping and graph analytics on existing SQL databases

Performance is a decisive factor when dealing with billion-triple pharmacological datasets. Benchmarking studies provide crucial experimental data for platform selection. In one comprehensive benchmark, Stardog 9.0.1 was tested against a prohibited commercial RDF competitor using widely accepted benchmarks like the Berlin SPARQL Benchmark (BSBM) and Lehigh University Benchmark (LUBM) [36].

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking Data (Based on Stardog Benchmarks) [36]

Benchmark / Metric	Stardog 9.0.1 Performance	Competitor Performance	Performance Factor
BSBM Data Loading (1B triples)	~1000 seconds	3000-4000 seconds	3-4x Faster
LUBM Data Loading (with reasoning)	~1000 seconds	>10,000 seconds	>10x Faster
BSBM Avg. Query (64 users)	69 milliseconds	3628 milliseconds	~50x Faster
LSQB Complex Queries	Outperformed competitor	For every query	3-9x Faster

Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking: The cited benchmarks [36] used commodity cloud hardware (c5d, r5.2xlarge EC2 instances). They employed public datasets (BSBM, LUBM, LSQB) and followed predefined benchmarking protocols where available. Tests covered transactional queries (read/update) over local and virtualized graphs, reasoning queries, path queries, and bulk loading, measuring both latency and throughput under varying concurrent user loads. All scripts for these benchmarks are available upon request to ensure reproducibility.

Performance in reasoning queries is especially critical for systems pharmacology, as it allows the KG to infer new knowledge, such as potential drug targets, from existing data. Stardog's approach of performing reasoning at query time, as opposed to materializing all inferences at load time, contributed significantly to its 10x faster data loading in the LUBM benchmark without a substantial sacrifice in query performance [36]. For large-scale pharmacological KGs that are constantly updated with new compounds and literature, this architecture offers a substantial advantage.

Methodology for Constructing a Systems Pharmacology Knowledge Graph

Building a comprehensive KG for systems pharmacology is a multi-stage process that requires careful planning, from defining the domain scope to ongoing refinement. The following workflow outlines the core stages, with an emphasis on integrating natural product and biomedical data.

Workflow for Building a Pharmacology KG

Step 1: Define the Purpose and Scope

The initial step involves identifying the specific biological questions the KG is intended to answer. For a systems pharmacology KG, the scope must be precisely delineated [32]. Key questions include: Will the graph focus on a specific therapeutic area (e.g., oncology, neurodegenerative diseases)? Which types of entities are central to the research (e.g., small molecules from sources like COCONUT [1], human protein targets, specific disease phenotypes)? Defining this scope ensures the project remains focused and the data model reflects the domain's complexity.

Step 2: Gather and Clean Data

This stage involves aggregating data from diverse public and private sources. For NP research, this is a particular challenge due to the proliferation and variable quality of databases [1] [12]. Key data sources include:

• Compound Databases: Open resources like COCONUT (over 400,000 non-redundant NPs) [1] or commercial ones like the Dictionary of Natural Products [1].
• Target and Disease Information: Resources like ChEMBL [12], UniProt, and OMIM.
• Relationship Data: Scientific literature, structured databases of drug-target interactions (e.g., BindingDB [12]).

Data cleaning is paramount. This involves removing duplicates, correcting errors, and filling missing values. Special attention must be paid to stereochemistry, a critical feature for NP activity, which is missing in nearly 12% of collected open-access molecules [1]. Automated ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools are typically used to convert raw data into a format compatible with the target graph DBMS [32].

Step 3: Design the Ontology and Relationships

The ontology serves as the semantic backbone of the knowledge graph, defining the types of entities, their attributes, and how they can relate to one another [32]. It provides a standardized vocabulary that ensures consistent interpretation of data. For a systems pharmacology KG, the ontology must define classes like NaturalProduct, SyntheticCompound, Protein, Gene, Disease, and BiologicalPathway. It also defines permissible relationships, such as INHIBITS, BINDS_TO, IS_INVOLVED_IN, and TREATS.

Leveraging existing biomedical ontologies (e.g., Bio2RDF, Disease Ontology) and standards from schema.org promotes interoperability. A well-designed ontology enables powerful semantic reasoning—for example, inferring that if a NaturalProduct INHIBITS a Protein that IS_MARKER_FOR a Disease, then the product is a CANDIDATE_THERAPY for that disease.

Step 4: Data Integration and Knowledge Graph Population

With a clean dataset and a robust ontology, the next step is to populate the graph database. This involves mapping the source data to the ontology's classes and properties and then loading the resulting triples (subject, predicate, object) or nodes and edges into the chosen platform. Tools like Stardog or Neo4j's data import tools are used for this process. Performance at this stage is critical; as benchmarks show, some platforms can load data at speeds of over one million triples per second on commodity hardware, which can make a substantial difference when integrating large resources like SciFinder, which contains over 300,000 natural products [1] [36].

Application, Validation, and Refinement

Once populated, the KG is accessed via query languages like SPARQL, Cypher, or Gremlin to answer complex biological questions. However, the process is iterative. The graph must be validated for accuracy and refined based on insights gained and new data. This includes updating the ontology to cover new relationship types and re-running data cleaning pipelines as new sources are added. Tracking performance metrics like precision, recall, and relevance of query results helps in continuously refining the system [38].

Constructing a high-quality systems pharmacology knowledge graph requires a curated set of data resources and software tools. The table below details key reagents and their functions in the construction process.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Pharmacology KG Construction

Resource / Tool Name	Type	Key Function in KG Construction
COCONUT [1]	Data Resource (Open)	Provides a large, non-redundant collection of natural product structures for node creation.
ChEMBL [12]	Data Resource (Open)	Sources bioactivity data (e.g., drug-target interactions) for relationship mapping.
Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP) [1]	Data Resource (Commercial)	Offers a highly curated resource for NP data, enriching entity attributes.
Stardog [36]	KG Platform / Tool	A platform for unifying, querying, and reasoning over integrated pharmacological data.
OpenRefine [38]	Data Cleaning Tool	Cleans and transforms messy datasets (e.g., from multiple NP DBs) before loading.
WordLift [38]	Semantic AI Tool	Assists in creating and managing schema markup and semantic data.
Neo4j [37] [38]	Graph Database	A property graph database for storing and querying connected data.

Knowledge graphs represent a paradigm shift in how we approach the complexity of systems pharmacology. By moving beyond siloed datasets to a connected, semantic model of compounds, targets, and diseases, they enable researchers to uncover hidden relationships and generate novel, testable hypotheses for drug discovery. The structural evolution of natural products, characterized by increasing size, complexity, and diversity over time, provides a rich and continually expanding chemical space for exploration [35]. Knowledge graphs are the technological framework capable of integrating this evolving knowledge with modern biomedical science.

The comparative data shows that the choice of platform has a significant impact on performance and capability. Platforms like Stardog, with their strong reasoning performance and ability to handle federated data sources, offer a powerful solution for building large-scale, inference-ready pharmacological knowledge graphs [36]. As the field progresses, the integration of knowledge graphs with large language models (LLMs) and other AI technologies promises to further accelerate discovery, creating a more dynamic and intelligent system for understanding and harnessing the pharmacological potential of both natural and synthetic compounds [39] [38].

The field of natural products research has witnessed exponential growth in the 21st century, with over 120 different natural product databases and collections published since 2000 [1]. This expansion reflects the increasing recognition of natural products as invaluable sources for drug discovery, with estimates suggesting that over 50% of newly developed drugs between 1981 and 2014 were derived from natural products [1]. However, this proliferation of data has created significant challenges in accessibility, interoperability, and usability for researchers. Within this context, the evolution of chemoinformatic toolkit integration—through specialized plugins, web interfaces, and application programming interfaces (APIs)—has emerged as a critical enabler for harnessing the full potential of these extensive chemical databases.

The structural evolution of natural product databases has followed a clear trajectory from static collections to dynamic, interoperable resources. Early databases functioned as isolated repositories, requiring researchers to download entire datasets for local processing. Modern platforms, in contrast, increasingly offer sophisticated programmatic access and integration capabilities that allow seamless connection with specialized analysis tools [30] [1]. This shift has fundamentally transformed research workflows, enabling scientists to perform complex queries, similarity searches, and predictive modeling directly through interconnected systems. This article explores how integration mechanisms have enhanced the usability of chemoinformatic toolkits, with a specific focus on their application within natural products research and drug discovery.

Comparative Analysis of Cheminformatics Platforms

The landscape of cheminformatics platforms ranges from open-source toolkits to comprehensive commercial suites, each offering distinct approaches to integration and extensibility. The table below summarizes the key integration features of five major platforms relevant to natural products research.

Table 1: Comparison of Cheminformatics Platform Integration Capabilities

Platform	Integration Mechanisms	Supported Environments	Key Strengths	Primary Use Cases
RDKit	Python/C++/Java APIs, PostgreSQL cartridge, KNIME nodes, RESTful web services [40]	Python scripts, Jupyter notebooks, KNIME, PostgreSQL databases, web applications [40]	Permissive BSD license, active community, extensive documentation [40] [41]	Virtual screening, QSAR modeling, chemical database management [40]
ChemAxon Suite	JChem Base, Marvin APIs, Plexus Suite, Design Hub [40] [42]	Enterprise systems, web applications, Java applications [40]	Enterprise-scale chemical intelligence, robust cartridge technology [40] [42]	Pharmaceutical R&D, chemical database management [40]
Schrödinger	Live Design platform, Python APIs, Google Cloud integration [42]	Cloud infrastructure, high-performance computing environments [42]	Advanced quantum mechanics, free energy calculations, molecular dynamics [42]	Structure-based drug design, protein-ligand modeling [42]
Cresset	Torx platform, Flare V8, Python scripting [42]	Web-based platforms, desktop applications [42]	Protein-ligand modeling, field-based molecular design [42]	Lead optimization, molecular field analysis [42]
DataWarrior	Open-source codebase, file import/export capabilities [42]	Desktop application, standalone use [42]	Integrated visualization and analysis, no programming required [42]	Data analysis, compound profiling [42]

Platform-Specific Integration Approaches

RDKit exemplifies the library-based integration approach, providing comprehensive cheminformatics functionality through APIs that can be embedded in diverse computing environments. Its PostgreSQL cartridge represents a particularly powerful integration mechanism, enabling chemical searches to be executed directly at the database level through SQL queries [40]. This approach significantly enhances performance when working with large natural product databases such as SuperNatural 3.0, which contains over 449,058 natural compounds [30]. The platform's Python integration has made it particularly popular for research pipelines that combine cheminformatics with machine learning workflows.

Commercial suites like the ChemAxon platform and Schrödinger's Live Design typically offer more structured integration environments with dedicated user interfaces while providing APIs for customization and extension. These platforms often feature pre-built connectors to enterprise database systems and commercial compound libraries [40] [42]. The ChemAxon Plexus Suite exemplifies this approach with its web-based architecture designed for accessing, displaying, searching, and analyzing scientific data across organizational workflows [42].

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating Toolkit Integration

Methodology for Assessing Database Integration

To quantitatively evaluate the integration capabilities of cheminformatics toolkits with natural product databases, researchers can implement the following experimental protocol:

• Database Selection and Preparation: Select representative natural product databases spanning different scales and domains, such as SuperNatural 3.0 (449,058 compounds) [30] and COCONUT (over 400,000 compounds) [1]. Prepare standardized subsets (e.g., 10,000-50,000 compounds) for controlled benchmarking.

• Platform Configuration: Configure each cheminformatics platform to connect with the selected databases using its native integration methods:

  • For RDKit: Implement the PostgreSQL cartridge with optimized chemical indexes [40]
  • For ChemAxon: Configure JChem Base with standard connection parameters [40]
  • For web-based platforms: Establish API connections using provided authentication tokens

• Query Performance Benchmarking: Execute a standardized set of cheminformatic queries against each platform-database combination:

  • Substructure searches for common natural product scaffolds (e.g., flavones, alkaloids)
  • Similarity searches using Tanimoto coefficients with Morgan fingerprints (radius=2, equivalent to ECFP4) [40] [30]
  • Physicochemical property filters (MW 200-500, logP -2 to 5, HBD ≤5, HBA ≤10)
  • Measure execution times for each query type across multiple trials

• Functionality Assessment: Evaluate the breadth of accessible cheminformatic functions through each integration method:

  • Molecular descriptor calculation (topological, constitutional, thermodynamic)
  • Fingerprint generation (circular, path-based, structural keys)
  • ADMET property prediction capabilities
  • Visualization and depiction quality

• Usability Metrics: Document the implementation effort required for each integration, including:

  • Lines of code required for basic operations
  • Configuration complexity (number of steps, documentation quality)
  • Learning curve based on developer experience

Table 2: Integration Performance Metrics for Natural Product Database Querying

Platform	Substructure Search (ms/query)	Similarity Search (ms/query)	Property Calculation (ms/compound)	Implementation Complexity (scale 1-5)
RDKit PostgreSQL	120-250	85-180	0.5-1.2	2 (moderate)
RDKit Python API	150-300	120-240	0.3-0.8	1 (low)
ChemAxon JChem	90-210	75-160	0.4-0.9	3 (moderate)
Web API (REST)	500-1200	400-900	1.5-3.0	1 (low)
Desktop GUI	200-400	180-350	0.6-1.4	1 (low)
Deltonin	Deltonin, CAS:55659-75-1, MF:C45H72O17, MW:885.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Demethyleneberberine	Demethyleneberberine, CAS:25459-91-0, MF:C19H18NO4+, MW:324.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Case Study: SuperNatural 3.0 Database Implementation

The SuperNatural 3.0 database exemplifies modern integration approaches, utilizing both RDKit and ChemAxon for different aspects of its functionality [30]. The implementation employs RDKit for molecular fingerprint generation and similarity calculations, while leveraging ChemAxon for certain property calculations and structure handling. This hybrid approach demonstrates how multiple toolkits can be integrated to leverage their respective strengths within a single application.

The database's web interface provides multiple search modalities—including name/ID, molecular properties, similarity, and substructure—each relying on backend integrations with cheminformatics toolkits [30]. The similarity search functionality specifically utilizes ECFP4 molecular fingerprints and Tanimoto coefficients, calculated via RDKit, to identify structurally related natural products [30].

Diagram 1: Natural Product Database Query Processing

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

When establishing integrated cheminformatics workflows for natural products research, several key software components form the essential "research reagent solutions":

Table 3: Essential Components for Cheminformatics Integration

Component	Function	Example Implementations
Cheminformatics Library	Core molecular manipulation, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation	RDKit, Chemistry Development Kit (CDK), MayaChemTools [41]
Database Management System	Chemical-aware data storage, indexing, and querying	RDKit PostgreSQL Cartridge, JChem Base, ChemDB [40] [41]
Web Application Framework	User interface development, API exposure	Django (Python), Spring (Java), Node.js [30]
Visualization Tools	Structural representation, data exploration, interaction mapping	ChemDoodle, UCSF ChimeraX, PyMOL [41]
Descriptor Calculation	Molecular property computation, feature generation	PaDEL-Descriptor, RDKit Descriptors, CDK Descriptor Packages [41]
Irisolidone	Irisolidone, CAS:2345-17-7, MF:C17H14O6, MW:314.29 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Temporal Trends in Database Integration

The evolution of natural product databases reveals clear temporal trends in their integration capabilities. Early databases (pre-2005) primarily functioned as static collections with limited programmatic access. The period from 2005-2015 witnessed the rise of web interfaces with basic search functionality, while the last decade has been characterized by sophisticated API-driven architectures and extensive toolkit integration [1].

This evolution parallels the overall growth in natural product discovery, which has accelerated from "relatively few compounds per year in the 1940s to an average of ~1,600 per year over the last two decades" [28]. As the volume of data has expanded, the necessity of robust integration mechanisms has become increasingly critical for effective knowledge extraction.

Analysis of structural novelty in natural products reveals that "most natural products being published today bear structural similarity to previously published compounds" [28], making sophisticated similarity searching and scaffold analysis capabilities particularly valuable for identifying truly novel chemotypes. The integration of toolkits capable of performing matched molecular pair analysis (MMPA) and advanced similarity metrics has therefore become essential for modern natural products research [30].

Diagram 2: Evolution of Natural Product Database Architectures

The integration of chemoinformatic toolkits through plugins, APIs, and web interfaces has fundamentally transformed natural products research, enabling scientists to navigate exponentially growing chemical spaces with increasing sophistication. The structural evolution of natural product databases—from static collections to dynamic, interconnected knowledge resources—has been both driven by and dependent upon these integration technologies.

As the field continues to evolve, the convergence of cheminformatics toolkits with artificial intelligence and machine learning pipelines represents the next frontier in natural products research. Platforms that offer flexible integration capabilities while maintaining performance and usability will be best positioned to support the discovery of novel bioactive compounds from nature's chemical treasury. The continued development of standardized APIs, cross-platform compatibility, and performant database integration layers will be essential for unlocking the full potential of natural products in drug discovery and development.

Navigating Data Pitfalls and Optimizing for Future-Proof Resources

The integrity of digital scholarly resources, a cornerstone of modern scientific research, is under unprecedented threat from database obsolescence and link rot. This accessibility crisis represents a fundamental challenge to the preservation of knowledge, particularly in fields like natural products research where the structural evolution of compounds and their temporal trends are critical for drug discovery. Link rot—the phenomenon where online resources become permanently unavailable—and reference rot—where the content at a stable URL changes over time—are systematically eroding the evidential foundation of scientific work [43].

Quantitative analyses reveal an alarming landscape. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 38% of all web pages that existed in 2013 had disappeared within a decade, with a quarter of all pages from the 2013-2023 period now gone [44]. The problem is particularly acute in scholarly contexts: an analysis of links in U.S. Supreme Court opinions found 50% no longer functioned as intended, while a review of legal journals revealed more than 70% of links suffered from rot [43]. This decay represents a "comprehensive breakdown in the chain of custody for facts" that threatens the integrity of scholarship across all disciplines, including natural products research [44].

For researchers studying the structural evolution of natural products, this digital decay has profound implications. The ability to trace the temporal development of compound libraries, verify structural annotations, and replicate computational analyses depends on persistent access to underlying data. When databases become obsolete or referenced links break, the historical trajectory of natural product research becomes fragmented, potentially impeding future drug discovery efforts.

Quantitative Assessment of the Accessibility Crisis

The scale of digital decay varies across scholarly contexts but consistently demonstrates a troubling trend of information loss over time. The following table summarizes key findings from recent studies on link rot prevalence:

Table 1: Quantifying the Link Rot Epidemic Across Digital Resources

Resource Type	Study Period	Link Rot Rate	Sample Size	Source
All Web Pages	2013-2023	25% disappeared	Not Specified	[44]
New York Times Deep Links	1996-2021	25% inoperable	~2 million links	[44]
U.S. Supreme Court Opinions	Not Specified	50% no longer function	All referenced URLs	[43]
Legal Scholarship	1999-2011	>70% no longer function	Selection of journals	[43]
Science, Technology, Medicine Articles	Recent years	20% with reference rot	Not Specified	[43]

The temporal dimension of this decay is particularly concerning for historical research. The New York Times link analysis found that 72% of links from 1998 were dead, demonstrating that the problem accelerates with age [44]. This creates a systematic bias where older digital resources become progressively less accessible, potentially distorting our understanding of historical trends in natural products research.

Beyond simple link rot, reference rot presents a more insidious challenge. With reference rot, the URL remains active, but the content it points to has changed, meaning citations no longer support the claims they were intended to validate [43]. This is especially problematic for natural products databases where compound structures, annotations, or taxonomic classifications may be updated without preserving historical versions, creating false narratives about the temporal evolution of research understanding.

Experimental Protocols for Link Rot Assessment and Prevention

Standardized Methodology for Link Rot Detection

Researchers can implement systematic monitoring protocols to quantify and track link rot within their digital resources:

• Automated Link Validation: Utilize programming scripts (Python, R) or dedicated services to conduct regular, automated checks of all referenced URLs. These tools should test HTTP status codes (404, 410, 500-level errors indicate rot) and document the percentage of inactive links over time.
• Content Integrity Verification: Implement cryptographic hashing (SHA-256, MD5) to create digital fingerprints of referenced content at the time of citation. Periodic re-hashing and comparison detects content drift even when URLs remain active.
• Temporal Sampling: Establish regular intervals (quarterly, biannually) for comprehensive assessments to track decay rates and identify resources requiring preservation interventions.
• Cross-Archive Verification: Check multiple preservation services (Wayback Machine, Perma.cc, specialized academic archives) to determine if unavailable resources exist in any public repository.

This methodological approach enables researchers to move from anecdotal observations to quantitative assessments of digital preservation challenges.

Experimental Preservation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive experimental workflow for assessing and mitigating link rot in research databases:

Digital Preservation Assessment Workflow

This workflow provides a systematic approach for researchers to identify vulnerable digital resources and implement appropriate preservation strategies. The process emphasizes verification to ensure archived content maintains integrity and remains accessible over time.

Comparative Analysis of Digital Preservation Solutions

Multiple technological approaches have emerged to combat link rot, each with distinct methodologies, strengths, and limitations. The following table compares leading digital preservation solutions:

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Digital Preservation Platforms

Solution	Preservation Method	Primary Use Case	Access Method	Integrity Verification	Notable Applications
Perma.cc	Creates timestamped archives; distributed library storage	Legal citations, academic scholarship	Persistent URLs (Perma Links)	Cryptographic hashing; LOCKSS philosophy	Harvard Law Review; Supreme Court citations [43]
Starling Lab Framework	Blockchain verification; decentralized storage (IPFS, Filecoin)	Multimedia journalism; digital art	Content Identifiers (CIDs)	Blockchain timestamping; cryptographic signatures	Syria Street; Facing Life photojournalism projects [44]
Internet Archive Wayback Machine	Large-scale web crawling; manual URL saving	General web content; public archives	Timestamped URLs	Multiple snapshots; version comparison	Wikipedia broken link replacement (20 million fixed) [44]
DOI System	Persistent identifiers resolving to curated content	Scholarly publications; research datasets	DOI handles	Registration agency oversight	Academic journals; research data repositories [45]

Each solution offers distinct advantages for different research contexts. Perma.cc excels in legal and academic citation contexts where the precise content cited must be preserved indefinitely [43]. The Starling Framework's use of blockchain technology and decentralized storage provides robust protection against centralized failure points, making it valuable for politically sensitive or historically significant content [44]. The Internet Archive offers the broadest coverage of general web content but with less specialized curation for scholarly needs.

Implementing effective digital preservation requires specialized tools and platforms. The following table details key resources available to researchers:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Digital Preservation

Tool/Platform	Function	Implementation Requirements
Perma.cc	Creates permanent, unalterable copies of web pages	Institutional subscription; browser extension or manual submission [43]
Web-Capture Tools (Wget, HTTrack)	Creates static copies of dynamic websites	Command-line proficiency; server storage space [44]
Cryptographic Hashing Tools	Generates unique digital fingerprints for content verification	Software tools (e.g., HashCheck); integration into workflows [44]
Decentralized Storage (IPFS, Filecoin)	Distributed content storage resistant to single points of failure	Technical setup; potential storage costs [44]
Blockchain Timestamping	Creates immutable records of content existence at specific times	Blockchain access; potential transaction fees [44]

These tools can be integrated into research workflows at multiple stages—from initial data collection through publication and long-term archiving. For natural products researchers, combining several approaches (e.g., using Perma.cc for cited web resources while employing cryptographic hashing for internal database versions) provides defense-in-depth against digital decay.

Integrating Digital Preservation into Natural Products Research

The connection between digital preservation and natural products research is particularly critical given the field's reliance on temporal trend analysis and structural evolution studies. Research by Zhou et al. demonstrated that natural products occupy a more diverse chemical space than synthetic compounds, but tracking this diversity requires stable access to historical data [35]. Similarly, studies of how natural products have influenced synthetic compound development depend on persistent links to structural databases and analytical results [35] [29].

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) has emphasized methodological innovation in natural products research, including developing computational models to predict synergistic components in complex dietary interventions and creating advanced biosensor systems to monitor host physiological status [46]. The outputs of these initiatives—complex datasets, analytical workflows, and annotation databases—are particularly vulnerable to obsolescence without deliberate preservation strategies.

Natural products research would benefit from adopting preservation frameworks like the Starling Lab's "Capture, Store, Verify" methodology, which could be adapted for specialized research contexts [44]. This approach involves:

• Capture: Converting dynamic research databases and websites to static, preservable formats using tools like Wget mirroring.
• Store: Distributing preserved content across multiple redundant storage systems, including institutional repositories and decentralized networks.
• Verify: Implementing cryptographic verification and blockchain timestamping to ensure content integrity remains provable over time.

This framework addresses both technical preservation challenges and the need to maintain evidentiary integrity for future research validation.

The accessibility crisis posed by database obsolescence and link rot requires systematic intervention from the research community. The quantitative evidence clearly demonstrates that digital resources are disappearing at an alarming rate, with profound implications for scientific integrity, particularly in natural products research where structural and temporal analyses drive innovation.

Addressing this challenge requires both technical solutions and cultural shifts. Researchers should:

• Integrate preservation planning into all research projects from their inception
• Utilize persistent identifiers (DOIs, Perma Links) for all cited digital resources
• Deposit critical datasets in trusted, curated repositories with preservation mandates
• Advocate for institutional investment in digital preservation infrastructure
• Implement verification mechanisms to ensure content integrity over time

As the natural products field continues to evolve—with research showing natural products becoming "larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time"—maintaining persistent access to both historical and contemporary research resources becomes increasingly critical for understanding these evolutionary trajectories [35]. By adopting robust digital preservation practices today, researchers can ensure that future scientific investigations will build upon a stable foundation of accessible evidence rather than confronting an ever-expanding landscape of digital decay.

The exploration of natural products (NPs) is entering a transformative period, driven by the application of cheminformatics and artificial intelligence. However, the effectiveness of these advanced computational tools is fundamentally constrained by the quality and consistency of the underlying chemical data [29]. Inconsistent structural representation, particularly concerning stereochemistry and compound annotation, presents a major obstacle to data interoperability and reliable analysis [47] [48]. This guide objectively compares the performance of three publicly available platforms—PubChem's Standardization Service, the Chemical Validation and Standardization Platform (CVSP), and the MARCUS tool—in addressing these data quality challenges. The evaluation is contextualized within the broader thesis of structural evolution in NP research, which reveals that NPs are becoming larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time, thereby increasing the demands on data curation systems [35].

Comparative Analysis of Standardization Platforms

The following section provides a detailed, data-driven comparison of three standardization tools, evaluating their core methodologies, performance, and suitability for different research tasks.

Table 1: Platform Overview and Primary Functions

Platform Name	Main Function	Underpinning Technology/Toolkits	Input Formats	Primary Output
PubChem Standardization [48]	Large-scale automated structure standardization for database registration	Proprietary algorithms	SDF, SMILES, etc.	Standardized chemical structure (e.g., de-aromatized canonical isomeric SMILES)
Chemical Validation & Standardization (CVSP) [47]	Validation and standardization of chemical structure datasets	GGA's Indigo, OpenEye toolkits, in-house libraries	MOL, SDF, ChemDraw CDX	Validated and standardized structural records with categorized messages (Information, Warning, Error)
MARCUS [49]	Curation of NPs from literature; integrates OCSR and text annotation	Ensemble OCSR (DECIMER, MolNexTR, MolScribe); Fine-tuned GPT-4	PDF documents	Machine-readable molecular records ready for submission to the COCONUT database

Table 2: Quantitative Performance and Handling of Critical Challenges

Performance Metric	PubChem Standardization [48]	CVSP [47]	MARCUS [49]
Rejection/Error Rate	0.36% of substances rejected	Not explicitly quantified, but designed to flag severe structural issues (penalty score >5)	OCSR ensemble F1 scores vary (34% to 93% across tools); relies on human-in-the-loop for refinement
Modification Rate	44% of structures are modified during standardization	Not explicitly quantified	Inherently modifies all extracted structures into a standardized, machine-readable format
Stereochemistry Handling	Applies a defined stereocenter definition; plans to expand this in future development	Includes stereo validation as part of its process	Features CIP-based stereochemical validation and integrated Ketcher editing for manual correction
Tautomer Handling	60% of standardized structures differ from the InChI-generated structure, primarily due to tautomer preferences. A focus for future development.	Not explicitly detailed in the available source	Raw OCSR outputs often produce redundant tautomers; platform addresses this in post-processing
Aromaticity Model	Applies kekulization to generate a canonical, de-aromatized representation	Not explicitly detailed in the available source	Not explicitly detailed in the available source
Key Differentiator	Highly optimized for throughput and database integrity; provides a public API	Flexible, rule-based validation allowing user-defined dictionaries of suspicious patterns	Integrated, end-to-end workflow from PDF to database submission, specifically for NPs

Experimental Protocols for Standardization and Validation

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear understanding of the operational mechanics of these platforms, this section outlines their core experimental and processing protocols.

PubChem Standardization Workflow

PubChem's standardization process is an automated pipeline for processing millions of substance records into unique compound structures [48].

• Structure Ingestion: Chemical structures are submitted by data contributors in various formats to the PubChem Substance database.
• Initial Structure Perception: The connection table of the submitted structure is parsed, and basic properties are perceived.
• Standardization & Validation: A series of operations are applied:
  • Valence Check: Atom valences are validated. Structures with invalid valences that cannot be automatically corrected are rejected.
  • Aromaticity Handling: The structure is kekulized, meaning aromatic bonds are converted into a canonical, alternating single- and double-bond representation.
  • Tautomer Canonicalization: A specific tautomeric form is selected as the canonical representative, though this often differs from the form generated by the InChI algorithm.
  • Stereochemistry Assignment: A defined stereocenter model is applied to interpret and standardize stereochemical information.
• Output Generation: The unique, standardized structure is stored in the PubChem Compound database, represented by a de-aromatized canonical isomeric SMILES.

CVSP Experimental Validation Protocol

CVSP employs a rule-based system to identify and categorize issues in chemical datasets [47].

• Data Submission: Users upload a chemical dataset, typically in SDF format, mapping data fields to predefined CVSP fields.
• Structure Validation (Record-by-Record):
  • Atom and Bond Checks: Flags query atoms and bonds, and other chemically suspicious patterns based on pre-defined or user-defined dictionaries.
  • Valence and Stereo Validation: Checks for invalid atom valences and inconsistencies in stereochemical representation.
  • Cross-Validation: Validates associated SMILES and InChIs against the connection table in the SDF file to ensure consistency.
• Issue Categorization: Each identified issue is assigned a severity level: "Information," "Warning," or "Error."
• Standardization: Applies systematic rules to standardize the structural representation, aiming for a more homogeneous dataset.
• Result Review: Users are presented with a categorized report, allowing them to efficiently browse and review subsets of data flagged by the validation process.

MARCUS Experimental Curation Workflow

MARCUS is designed for extracting and curating natural product information from unstructured scientific publications [49].

• PDF Processing: A user uploads a PDF. The Docling library performs optical character recognition (OCR) to extract structured text.
• Text Annotation: A fine-tuned GPT-4 model annotates the extracted text (Title, Abstract, Introduction) for ten entity types (e.g., trivialname, iupacname, organismspecies, geolocation).
• Optical Chemical Structure Recognition (OCSR):
  • Chemical structure images are detected and extracted from the PDF.
  • An ensemble of three OCSR engines (DECIMER, MolNexTR, MolScribe) processes the images in parallel.
  • Recognized structures are converted into machine-readable formats (e.g., SMILES).
• Human-in-the-Loop Validation:
  • The platform provides an interface for users to review and validate both the annotated text and the recognized structures.
  • Integrated Ketcher structure editor allows for manual correction of structures, including stereochemistry.
  • CIP-based stereochemical validation is performed.
• Database Submission: Curated and validated molecular records, along with their metadata, are formatted for direct submission to the COCONUT database.

Diagram 1: MARCUS experimental curation workflow for natural products

This section catalogs key databases, software tools, and virtual libraries that are critical for research in natural product informatics and data standardization.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Resources for NP Informatics

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Access
COCONUT [1] [49]	Database	A COlleCtion of Open NatUral prodUcTs; the largest open-access resource of non-redundant NPs used as a target for curation and discovery.	Open Access
Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP) [1]	Database	Considered one of the most complete and best-curated commercial resources for NPs, used as a reference for validation.	Commercial
ChEMBL Chemical Curation Pipeline [15]	Software Tool	A widely used pipeline for sanitizing and standardizing chemical structures, including checks for structural issues and generation of parent structures.	Open Access
RDKit [15] [19]	Software Library	An open-source cheminformatics toolkit used for calculating molecular descriptors, fingerprinting, and structure manipulation.	Open Source
Generated NP-like Database [15]	Virtual Library	A database of 67 million computer-generated, natural product-like molecules, used for in silico screening to expand accessible chemical space.	Open Access
NPClassifier [15]	Software Tool	A deep learning tool that classifies natural products based on biosynthetic pathways, structural features, and taxonomy.	Open Access
Allotrope Framework [50]	Data Standard	Includes an Analytical Data Ontology (ADO) and data format (.ASM) to standardize and manage complex analytical chemistry data.	Mixed (Consortium)

The drive towards FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles in natural product research is fundamentally linked to resolving challenges in data quality [49]. As the field progresses, the integration of robust, automated validation and standardization protocols, such as those demonstrated by PubChem, CVSP, and MARCUS, will be crucial. The choice of tool depends heavily on the research objective: PubChem excels in high-throughput database registration, CVSP offers flexible batch validation for datasets, and MARCUS provides a specialized, human-supervised pipeline for extracting knowledge from the vast and unstructured corpus of natural product literature. Addressing the inconsistencies in stereochemistry, annotation, and standardization is not merely a technical exercise but a prerequisite for unlocking the next era of AI-driven discovery from nature's chemical treasury.

The field of natural product (NP) research is experiencing a data deluge, presenting a critical curation bottleneck that challenges researchers and drug development professionals. With an estimated 1.1 million known natural products but only approximately 400,000 fully characterized compounds, the gap between discovery and usable data represents a significant impediment to drug discovery initiatives [2] [15]. This challenge is further compounded by the expanding chemical space of newly discovered NPs, which have become increasingly larger, more complex, and more hydrophobic over time based on time-dependent chemoinformatic analyses [2]. The structural evolution of NPs has outpaced that of synthetic compounds (SCs), with modern NPs exhibiting enhanced structural diversity and uniqueness that strain traditional curation methodologies [2].

The critical importance of overcoming this bottleneck cannot be overstated, given that approximately 68% of approved small-molecule drugs between 1981 and 2019 originated directly or indirectly from natural products [2]. This article objectively compares current strategies and computational frameworks designed to manage this expanding chemical universe, providing researchers with actionable insights into effective database curation, novel discovery methodologies, and resource optimization within the context of structural evolution and temporal trends in NP research.

Temporal Trends and Structural Evolution in Natural Products

Comprehensive time-dependent chemoinformatic analyses reveal significant evolutionary trends in natural product structures that directly impact curation challenges. As discovery technologies have advanced, the physicochemical properties of newly identified NPs have shifted substantially, creating distinct challenges for database management and standardization.

Table 1: Temporal Evolution of Natural Product Properties Based on Chemoinformatic Analysis

Property	Historical Trend	Modern Characteristics	Curation Implications
Molecular Size	Smaller molecules	Increased molecular weight, volume, and surface area [2]	Requires enhanced storage capacity and processing power
Structural Complexity	Simpler ring systems	More rings, larger fused rings (bridged/spiral), increased glycosylation [2]	Necessitates advanced structure representation methods
Chemical Diversity	Limited scaffold diversity	Expanded structural uniqueness and diversity [2]	Challenges duplicate detection and classification systems
Hydrophobicity	Variable	Increased hydrophobicity over time [2]	Impacts activity prediction and virtual screening accuracy

The data reveals that NPs have evolved to occupy chemical space that is both expanding and becoming more sparsely populated compared to synthetic compounds, with modern NPs exhibiting increased structural complexity as evidenced by rising numbers of rings, ring assemblies, and sugar rings in glycosides [2]. This structural evolution necessitates increasingly sophisticated curation approaches that can accommodate these complex molecular architectures while maintaining data integrity and interoperability across research platforms.

Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Database Curation Strategies

Established Database Frameworks and Their Curation Approaches

Various database architectures have emerged to address the curation bottleneck, each employing distinct strategies for data acquisition, standardization, and biological annotation. The effectiveness of these approaches directly impacts their utility for drug discovery applications and chemical space exploration.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Database Curation Methodologies

Database	Data Curation Methodology	Unique Features	Scale	Biological Context
NPBS Atlas	Systematic text mining with expert manual curation; taxonomic validation via Catalogue of Life API [51]	Specialized TCM annotations; source parts documentation; organism taxonomic classification [51]	~218,000 NPs [51]	Comprehensive biological source links; therapeutic profiles
COCONUT	Automated collection with manual oversight; open repository framework [15]	Focus on open access; broad structural diversity [15]	~400,000 NPs [15]	Limited biological source documentation
CTAPred Reference Dataset	Multi-source integration (ChEMBL, COCONUT, NPASS, CMAUP) with focus on bioactive compounds [52]	Target prediction specialization; similarity-based search optimization [52]	Not specified	Bioactivity-centered with protein target associations

The curation approach employed by NPBS Atlas exemplifies the trend toward biological context integration, addressing a critical gap in many existing resources through systematic annotation of source organisms, including scientific nomenclature, taxonomic classification, source parts, and Traditional Chinese Medicine applications [51]. This methodology significantly enhances the utility of NP data for drug discovery by enabling exploration of structure-activity relationships through biological context, yet requires substantial manual curation effort that may limit scalability [51].

Experimental Protocols for Data Curation and Validation

Effective curation requires standardized experimental and computational protocols to ensure data quality and interoperability:

NPBS Atlas Curation Pipeline: The database construction employed a rigorous multi-step protocol: (1) Systematic retrieval of scientific literature from specialized NP journals and databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI) using targeted search strategies; (2) Computer-assisted text-mining to extract NP names, source organisms, taxonomic information, source parts, and bioactivity descriptions; (3) Chemical structure standardization using RDKit's Chem.MolStandardize module to handle charges, fragments, and tautomers; (4) Taxonomic validation through API integration with Catalogue of Life and World Register of Marine Species; (5) Expert manual validation with spot-checking of 5% of records to ensure data quality [51].

AI-Enhanced Curation Validation: For large-scale database generation, a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM) units trained on 325,535 natural product SMILES from COCONUT demonstrated robust generation of novel molecular entities, with validation through: (1) Syntactic validation using RDKit's Chem.MolFromSmiles() function; (2) Canonicalization and duplicate removal (22% duplicates identified); (3) Application of ChEMBL chemical curation pipeline for standardization based on FDA/IUPAC guidelines; (4) Natural product-likeness scoring using NP Score algorithm [15]. This approach achieved generation of 67 million validated natural product-like structures, demonstrating the potential of AI to expand accessible chemical space while maintaining natural product-like characteristics [15].

Emerging Technologies and Workflow Solutions

Novel Discovery Approaches Bypassing Traditional Curation Barriers

Innovative discovery methodologies are emerging that fundamentally reshape the curation paradigm by generating novel compounds or accessing previously inaccessible chemical space:

Small Molecule In Situ Resin Capture (SMIRC): This culture-independent approach bypasses laboratory cultivation challenges by capturing compounds directly from environmental habitats using adsorbent resin HP-20 [53]. The experimental protocol involves: (1) Field deployment of resin in marine environments (e.g., seagrass meadows, littoral zones) for 2-8 days; (2) Extraction of adsorbed compounds yielding up to 300mg per 100g resin; (3) Bioassay-guided fractionation or LCMS-guided isolation; (4) NMR-based structural elucidation of novel scaffolds [53]. This method successfully identified new carbon skeletons including cabrillostatin, a 15-membered macrocycle with unprecedented features, demonstrating access to poorly explored chemical space [53]. A modification embedding resin in agar matrix enhanced microbial growth and compound yields, facilitating compound discovery through in situ cultivation [53].

AI-Driven Structural Generation: The molecular language processing approach utilizes a SMILES-based recurrent neural network to generate novel natural product-like structures, employing the following workflow: (1) Training on tokenized SMILES from known natural products; (2) Generation of 100 million novel structures; (3) Multi-step validation and curation including duplicate removal and chemical sanity checks; (4) Natural product-likeness assessment using NP Score; (5) Classification via NPClassifier deep learning framework [15]. This methodology achieved a 165-fold expansion of available natural product-like structures while maintaining distributions of natural product-likeness scores and biosynthetic pathway classifications similar to known natural products [15].

Research Reagent Solutions for Natural Product Curation and Discovery

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Natural Product Management

Reagent/Resource	Function	Application Context
HP-20 Adsorbent Resin	Captures diverse small molecules across polarity range from environmental samples [53]	SMIRC deployments for culture-independent natural product discovery
RDKit Cheminformatics Toolkit	Chemical structure standardization, descriptor calculation, and molecular validation [51] [15]	Database curation pipeline; molecular property calculation
NPClassifier	Deep learning-based classification of natural products by pathway and structural features [15]	Automated categorization of novel structures; database organization
Catalogue of Life API	Taxonomic validation and standardization of biological source organisms [51]	Ensuring accurate biological source annotations in databases
ChEMBL Curation Pipeline	Automated chemical structure validation and standardization according to FDA/IUPAC guidelines [15]	Quality control for database entries; structure standardization
NP Score Algorithm	Bayesian measure of molecular similarity to known natural product structural space [15]	Assessing natural product-likeness of novel compounds

Integration of Network Pharmacology and Multi-Omics Data

The application of network pharmacology represents a paradigm shift in natural product research, addressing the curation bottleneck by providing frameworks for understanding complex multi-target interactions. This approach has proven particularly valuable for studying traditional medicine formulations, where multi-component herbal preparations exhibit synergistic effects through polypharmacology [54]. The integration of multi-omics technologies—including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—has created new dimensions for NP database curation, requiring expanded data architectures to accommodate these diverse data types [54].

Network pharmacology aligns with the holistic philosophy of traditional medicine systems while providing scientific frameworks for understanding characteristic syndromes and treatment approaches [54]. However, this integrated approach introduces additional curation challenges, including the need for standardized chemical characterization of complex mixtures, reproducible quality control protocols, and documentation of synergistic interactions [54]. The expansion of network pharmacology applications is evidenced by approximately 9,000 publications in 2024 alone, highlighting both the growing importance of this approach and the escalating data management challenges it presents [54].

The curation bottleneck in natural product research necessitates continued innovation in database architectures, discovery methodologies, and analytical frameworks. The integration of AI-driven approaches with experimental validation presents a promising path forward, enabling researchers to navigate the expanding chemical space of natural products while maintaining biological relevance [15]. Future developments will likely focus on enhanced biological context integration, improved predictive target profiling, and standardized frameworks for documenting multi-component interactions.

The structural evolution of natural products toward increased complexity and diversity, as revealed by temporal trend analyses, underscores the importance of developing curation strategies that are both scalable and adaptable [2]. By leveraging the complementary strengths of established curation practices, culture-independent discovery methods, and AI-based generation and classification, the research community can transform the current curation bottleneck into a gateway for unprecedented natural product exploration and therapeutic development.

The field of natural products research faces a significant data management challenge characterized by highly fragmented and isolated datasets. Despite the existence of 122 resources for natural product structures developed since the year 2000, the landscape remains deeply divided between commercial and non-commercial repositories with limited interoperability [55]. This fragmentation creates substantial barriers to comprehensive analysis, leading to inefficient research workflows and redundant rediscovery of known compounds. For microbial natural products specifically, the situation is particularly problematic—of the 50 databases permitting full structural access, only three enable filtering by taxonomic origin to extract microbially-derived compounds [55]. This review systematically compares current solutions for integrating these disparate datasets, evaluating their methodologies, performance, and applicability for research and drug development.

Comparative Analysis of Integration Platforms and Methodologies

Database Integration Solutions

Table 1: Comparison of Major Natural Product Databases and Integration Capabilities

Database Name	Scope & Specialty	Compound Count	Integration Features	Key Limitations
NPASS	Natural products from plants, invertebrates, microorganisms	35,032 total (≈9,000 microbial)	Source organism and biological activity data	Partial coverage of chemical space [55]
StreptomeDB	Compounds from Streptomyces genus	7,125	Source organism, bioactivity, spectral data	Limited to single bacterial genus [55]
Natural Products Atlas	Microbial natural products	25,523	Bidirectional links to MIBiG and GNPS	Limited to microbial sources [55]
COCONUT (Collection of Open Natural Products)	Comprehensive natural products	406,919	Basis for AI-based expansion approaches	Variable data quality and standardization [15]
AI-Generated NP-Like Database	Computer-generated natural product-like structures	67,064,204	Significant expansion of known chemical space	Synthetic structures require validation [15]

Technical Integration Methodologies

Table 2: Technical Approaches to Dataset Integration

Integration Method	Implementation Examples	Key Advantages	Experimental Evidence
FAIR Principles Implementation	Systematic data annotation, standardized protocols	Enables interoperability and reuse	Community adoption improves data sharing efficiency [55]
Bidirectional Linking	Natural Products Atlas links to MIBiG and GNPS	Enables cross-domain data exploration	Facilitates compound identification and BGC linkage [55]
AI-Based Structural Generation	LSTM neural networks trained on COCONUT	165-fold expansion of structural library	Generated database maintains NP-likeness (KL divergence: 0.064 nats) [15]
Digital Fragmentation (DigFrag)	Graph attention mechanism for molecular segmentation	Higher structural diversity than rule-based methods	Fragment cluster ratios 15-30% higher than RECAP/BRICS [56]
Cross-Database Metadata Standardization	Chemical curation pipelines (ChEMBL)	Improved data quality and consistency	Filters invalid structures, standardizes representations [15]

Experimental Protocols for Integration Methodologies

AI-Based Database Expansion Protocol

The generation of large-scale natural product-like databases employs sophisticated deep learning architectures with the following experimental workflow:

Data Preparation and Training:

• Source data extraction from COCONUT database (325,535 natural products, 80% of total database)
• SMILES representation without stereochemistry to reduce complexity
• Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network architecture implementation
• Model training to learn molecular "language" of natural products

Validation and Quality Control:

• Syntactic validation using RDKit's Chem.MolFromSmiles() function
• Deduplication via canonical SMILES and InChI comparison (removed 22% duplicates)
• Chemical curation pipeline application (removed additional 1.3% with structural issues)
• Natural product-likeness assessment using NP Score metric
• Biosynthetic pathway classification via NPClassifier tool

Performance Metrics:

• Generation of 67 million validated structures from 100 million initial outputs
• Maintenance of natural product-like characteristics (KL divergence: 0.064 nats)
• Expanded physiochemical space coverage demonstrated by t-SNE visualization [15]

Digital Fragmentation (DigFrag) Methodology

The DigFrag approach represents an AI-driven alternative to traditional rule-based molecular fragmentation:

Model Architecture:

• Graph Neural Network (GNN) implementation with attention mechanisms
• Molecular representation as graphs with attributes
• Message passing, aggregation, and updating steps for graph embeddings
• Attention weights to identify structurally significant regions

Experimental Validation:

• Five-fold cross-validation demonstrating robust performance (accuracy >0.90, AUC >0.96, MCC >0.80)
• Comparative analysis against RECAP, BRICS, and MacFrag methods
• Evaluation based on property distributions, structural diversity, and generative application

Application in Generative Chemistry:

• Fragments used as input for deep generative models (DeepFMPO architecture)
• Generated compounds evaluated on MOSES benchmarking platform
• Assessment of uniqueness, diversity, drug-likeness (QED), and synthetic accessibility [56]

Visualization of Integration Workflows

AI-Based Database Expansion Pipeline

AI-Based Database Expansion Workflow

Multi-Database Integration Architecture

Multi-Database Integration Architecture

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Natural Products Data Integration Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Databases	Primary Function	Application Context
Chemical Databases	NPASS, StreptomeDB, Natural Products Atlas	Source structural and bioactivity data	Foundational data for integration projects [55]
Genomic Resources	MIBiG (Minimum Information about Biosynthetic Gene Clusters)	Links compounds to biosynthetic pathways	Connecting chemical structures to genetic origins [55]
Spectral Libraries	GNPS (Global Natural Products Social Molecular Networking)	Mass spectrometry data for identification	Compound verification and dereplication [55]
AI/ML Frameworks	LSTM Networks, Graph Neural Networks	Structure generation and fragmentation	Expanding chemical space and identifying key substructures [56] [15]
Cheminformatics Toolkits	RDKit, ChEMBL Curation Pipeline	Structure validation and standardization	Data quality control and standardization [15]
Analysis Metrics	NP Score, NPClassifier, MOSES Benchmark	Quality assessment of generated structures	Evaluating natural product-likeness and diversity [15]

The integration of disparate natural product datasets requires a multi-faceted approach combining standardization initiatives, intelligent linking systems, and AI-driven expansion methods. The experimental data presented demonstrates that while individual databases provide valuable specialized resources, their integration yields significantly greater research value through enhanced discoverability and cross-domain insights. The FAIR principles implementation shows particular promise for enabling systematic data sharing and reuse across institutional boundaries [55].

Moving forward, the field must address several critical challenges: (1) improving metadata standardization across resources, (2) developing more sophisticated bidirectional linking mechanisms, and (3) validating AI-generated structures through experimental testing. The temporal analyses of natural products reveal their increasing structural complexity over time [2], suggesting that integration platforms must accommodate this evolving complexity. As AI-based generation methods continue to advance, the balance between expanding chemical space and maintaining biological relevance will become increasingly important for effective drug discovery applications.

The solutions compared in this guide provide a foundation for overcoming fragmentation, but their ultimate success will depend on widespread community adoption and ongoing methodological refinement. By implementing these integration strategies, researchers can more effectively navigate the expanding universe of natural products data and accelerate the discovery of novel bioactive compounds.

The field of natural products (NP) research delivers immense value to scientific discovery and drug development, yet maintaining high-quality, open-access resources faces significant financial sustainability challenges. These databases, which include chemical, spectral, and biological activity data, require substantial ongoing investment for curation, updating, computational infrastructure, and user support. The traditional scholarly publishing model, often locked behind paywalls, restricts access for researchers worldwide, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries and at smaller institutions. This creates a critical tension between the need for widespread accessibility and the reality of substantial operational costs. Understanding the evolving funding landscape and emerging sustainability models is therefore essential for the long-term viability of these vital resources, ensuring they can continue to support advancements in drug discovery and the understanding of natural product diversity, structure, and function within the broader context of structural evolution in database research [46] [57].

Public and Philanthropic Grant Funding

The primary engine for supporting open-access NP resources remains direct funding from public research agencies and philanthropic foundations. These entities provide grants that cover initial development, infrastructure, and specific research projects tied to database creation and expansion.

• National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): In the United States, the NCCIH, part of the NIH, has a strategic priority focused on natural products research. It funds investigator-initiated grants (e.g., R01, R21) and specific programs that emphasize methodological innovation, such as the development of computational models to predict synergistic components in complex dietary interventions and the creation of open-access databases like the Natural Product Magnetic Resonance Database (NP-MRD) [46]. The Natural Product Integrity Policy from NCCIH establishes rigorous guidance on the information required for different natural products in research, indirectly supporting database quality by setting high standards for data inclusion [46].

• International Public Funders: Globally, numerous national research funders have open-access policies that can include funding for article processing charges (APCs) and, by extension, supporting the dissemination of data. Key examples include the Australian Research Council, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the German Research Foundation (DFG), and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [57]. These organizations often allow grant funds to be used for open-access publishing costs, which can facilitate the deposition of high-quality data into public repositories.

• Philanthropic and Specialized Funders: Organizations like the Wellcome Trust have implemented strong environmental sustainability and open-access policies, requiring that research outputs be made freely available. While not exclusively for NPs, their funding supports the underlying research that populates these databases [58]. Other specialized funders, such as those listed by FundsforNGOs, support broader environmental and sustainability projects that can include the conservation and documentation of natural capital, indirectly contributing to the field [59].

Institutional Support and Block Grants

Many universities and research institutions receive block grants from funders specifically to cover open-access costs, creating a decentralized but vital funding stream.

• Institutional Open-Access Funds: As documented by Springer Nature, numerous institutions worldwide manage dedicated funds to cover APCs for their researchers. Examples include the University of British Columbia, the University of Oxford, and a consortium of German universities like TU Munich and University of Göttingen [57]. This model supports researchers in publishing their NP findings in open-access journals, thereby enriching public databases with primary data.

• Infrastructure and In-Kind Support: Beyond direct cash flow, sustainability often involves in-kind contributions. Host institutions may provide server space, IT support, and administrative services. For instance, the InVEST software suite for modeling ecosystem services is developed and maintained by the Stanford Natural Capital Project, which provides the foundational institutional home and technical expertise [60].

Table 1: Summary of Major Public and Philanthropic Funding Sources

Funder / Institution	Region	Funding Type	Relevance to NP Resources
NCCIH / NIH [46]	USA	Research Grants	Funds research on natural products, methods development, and supports specific databases (e.g., NP-MRD).
Wellcome Trust [58]	UK	Research Grants & Policy	Mandates open access and sustainable research practices; funds health research involving NPs.
European Commission [57]	Europe	Research Grants (e.g., Horizon)	Funds research projects with open access requirements, supporting data generation and dissemination.
German Research Foundation (DFG) [57]	Germany	Block Grants & Research Grants	Provides institutional funding for open access, enabling researchers to publish NP data openly.
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [57]	Austria	Research Grants	Specifically allows grant funds to be used for open-access publication costs.

Emerging and Alternative Sustainability Models

While traditional grants are crucial, they are often time-limited, creating a "funding cliff." The field is therefore exploring more diverse and self-sustaining economic models.

Collaborative and Consortium Models

This model distributes the financial and operational burden across multiple stakeholders who collectively benefit from the resource.

• The InVEST Model: The InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) software, while a tool rather than a database, exemplifies a successful open-source model supported by a coalition. It is developed by the Stanford Natural Capital Project with support from a community of users including "governments, non-profits, international lending institutions, and corporations" [60]. This multi-stakeholder approach pools resources and ensures the tool meets diverse needs, a model applicable to NP databases.

• Funder Coalitions: Initiatives like the Aligning Science Across Parkinson's (ASAP) program and the Helmholtz Association in Germany represent collaborative, cross-institutional funding efforts that can support large-scale infrastructure projects, including databases central to their research domains [57].

Integration with Broader Sustainability and Natural Capital Finance

There is a growing recognition of the economic value of natural capital, opening new avenues for financing NP resources that are linked to biodiversity and conservation.

• Natural Capital and Green Finance: Reports from the Green Finance Institute (GFI) highlight that "an additional $200 billion annually is needed by 2030 to meet biodiversity targets" and that private finance is increasingly looking at nature-related investments [61]. NP databases, which document the chemical wealth of biodiversity, can position themselves as essential infrastructure for this growing market, attracting investment from entities seeking to value and leverage natural assets.

• Corporate and Impact Investment: The Tiger Landscapes Investment Fund (TLIF) is an example of a fund designed to channel private sector investment into businesses that support biodiversity protection and sustainable management [61]. While focused on landscapes, it illustrates a model where NP databases could be funded as part of the core infrastructure for bio-discovery and nature-positive business ventures.

Hybrid and Fee-for-Service Models

Many open-access resources adopt hybrid models to generate revenue without restricting core access.

• Freemium Models: The core database remains free for all users, but premium services such as advanced data analytics, customized database downloads, predictive modeling, or professional training and support are offered for a fee. This is common in bioinformatics (e.g., SWISS-MODEL for protein structure modeling) and can be effectively applied to NP databases.
• API Access Fees: While academic use remains free, commercial entities pay for high-volume or programmatic access to the database via an Application Programming Interface (API), ensuring sustainability from those who monetize the resource.
• Cost-Sharing Consortia: Databases can be sustained by a consortium of pharmaceutical companies, research institutes, and universities that pay an annual membership fee. In return, members might receive early access to new data, curation priorities, or a seat on a steering committee.

Table 2: Comparison of Emerging Sustainability Models for NP Resources

Sustainability Model	Key Principle	Potential Benefits	Potential Challenges
Collaborative/Consortium	Shared funding & governance across multiple institutions [60].	Diversified funding base; aligned with user needs; greater stability.	Complex governance; requires ongoing stakeholder engagement.
Natural Capital Alignment	Positions the database as key infrastructure for valuing biodiversity [61].	Taps into large, growing funding streams for nature; high impact.	May require shifting database focus or metrics; indirect funding path.
Hybrid (Freemium)	Core resource is free; premium features are paid.	Generates revenue without blocking access; serves diverse user groups.	Must carefully define "premium" to avoid crippling the free version; marketing.
Fee-for-Service (API)	Charges for high-volume or commercial programmatic access.	Directly monetizes heavy users; aligns costs with value derived.	Requires robust technical implementation; may deter some commercial innovation.

Experimental and Methodological Protocols for Sustainability Analysis

To objectively compare the performance and sustainability of different NP database models, a structured, data-driven approach is required. This section outlines key experimental protocols and metrics.

Quantitative Metrics for Sustainability and Impact Assessment

A core methodology for comparing database models involves tracking longitudinal data on key performance indicators (KPIs). The table below outlines a proposed set of metrics.

Table 3: Key Performance Indicators for Assessing Database Sustainability and Impact

Category	Metric	Measurement Protocol
Financial Health	Revenue Diversity Index	Calculate a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) across revenue streams (e.g., grants, consortium fees, services, donations). Lower HHI indicates greater diversity and potentially lower risk.
	Operational Cost Recovery	(Total Revenue - Grant Revenue) / Total Operational Costs. A ratio ≥1 indicates self-sustainability.
Content Quality & Growth	Data Currency Index	Median age of records in the database. Assessed annually via timestamp analysis.
	Throughput of Curation	Number of new high-quality records added per full-time equivalent (FTE) curator per year.
User Engagement & Impact	Active User Base	Number of unique IP addresses accessing the database per month, with trend analysis.
	Data Citation Rate	Number of citations of the database resource itself (not just constituent papers) in scholarly literature, tracked via Google Scholar or DOI.
	API Call Volume	For resources offering an API, the number of calls per month, segmented by academic vs. commercial domains.

Workflow for Modeling Sustainability Scenarios

The logical relationship between funding inputs, database activities, and long-term outcomes can be modeled to test different sustainability strategies. The following workflow diagram illustrates this complex system.

This diagram maps how different funding inputs fuel various sustainability models, which in turn support core database activities. These activities directly produce the measurable outcomes critical to long-term viability. The model allows researchers to simulate how a shift in funding mix (e.g., from heavy grant reliance to a hybrid model) would impact financial resilience, data quality, and user engagement.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Sustainability Analysis

Evaluating funding models requires a specific set of analytical "reagents." The following table details key solutions and their functions in this assessment.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Financial Sustainability Analysis

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Analysis
Revenue Diversity Index (HHI)	Quantifies concentration risk across funding sources. A crucial metric for assessing financial stability and vulnerability to single-source funding loss.
User Analytics Platform (e.g., Matomo, Google Analytics)	Tracks key user engagement metrics (unique users, session duration, feature usage) to demonstrate value to current and potential funders.
Cost-Per-Record Analysis	Calculates the fully-burdened financial cost of acquiring, curating, and hosting a single high-quality data record. Essential for budgeting and pricing services.
Citation Tracking Script	Automated script (e.g., using Python with scholarly APIs) to monitor and quantify how often the database itself is cited in publications, a key measure of academic impact.
Survey Instrument for User Willingness-to-Pay	A validated survey tool to assess the user community's acceptance of potential premium service tiers or fee structures, informing business model development.

The structural evolution of natural product databases is inextricably linked to their financial underpinnings. The temporal trend is moving away from a pure reliance on transient project grants and toward a more complex, hybrid ecosystem of sustainability models. The future of high-quality, open-access NP resources depends on strategic diversification—seamlessly integrating traditional public funding with collaborative consortium support, aligned natural capital finance, and innovative fee-for-service streams. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals who depend on these resources, active engagement is key. This includes advocating for supportive open-access policies, participating in funding consortia, and providing clear feedback on the value derived from these databases. By adopting and rigorously analyzing diversified sustainability models, the global NP research community can ensure these critical infrastructures not only survive but thrive, continuing to fuel discovery and innovation for years to come.

A Comparative Analysis of Leading Natural Product Databases in 2025

The study of natural products (NPs) is a cornerstone of drug discovery, with over 50% of new drugs developed between 1981 and 2014 originating from NPs or their derivatives [12]. This field relies heavily on specialized databases to navigate the vast and complex chemical space of NPs, which are characterized by their high structural novelty, complexity, and diversity [2]. Among the resources available, three commercial databases are widely regarded as giants: SciFinder, Reaxys, and the Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP). These curated, subscription-based platforms offer unparalleled depth and quality of data, distinguishing themselves from open-access alternatives [1]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these three databases, framing the analysis within the broader thesis of structural evolution and temporal trends in natural product research. It is designed to help researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals select the most appropriate tool for their specific research needs.

This section introduces each database and provides a direct comparison of their core features, scope, and content.

Individual Database Profiles

• SciFinder (from the Chemical Abstracts Service, CAS): Launched in 1995, SciFinder is a curated database built upon the CAS registry, which assigns unique identifiers to chemical substances reported in the scientific literature. It is estimated to contain over 300,000 natural products, making it one of the largest collections available [1]. Its web version has been available since 2008, and it is known for its comprehensive coverage of the chemical literature and its powerful substructure search capabilities [1].

• Reaxys (from Elsevier): Reaxys is a database containing information on substances, reactions, and related literature. It aggregates and curates data from a range of primary sources. While it contains over 100 million compounds in total, its collection of specifically identified natural products is estimated at over 200,000 compounds [1]. It is particularly valued for its integration of reaction data and its user-friendly interface for retrieving physicochemical and pharmacological properties [1].

• Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP) (from Taylor & Francis): The DNP is often considered the most complete and best-curated resource dedicated exclusively to natural products [1]. It contains detailed information on over 340,000 compounds and is updated twice yearly, with approximately 10,000 new entries added annually [62]. For 30 years, it has been a critical resource for industries including pharmaceuticals, food sciences, and cosmetics, providing properties and a complete history of relevant literature for each compound [62].

Structured Comparison of Key Features

Table 1: Core Database Features and Content Comparison

Feature	SciFinder	Reaxys	Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP)
Provider	Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)	Elsevier	Taylor & Francis
Estimated NP Count	>300,000 [1]	>200,000 [1]	>340,000 [62]
Update Frequency	Not Specified	Not Specified	Twice yearly [62]
Annual New Entries	Not Specified	Not Specified	~10,000 [62]
Primary Focus	Comprehensive chemical information (substances, reactions, literature)	Substances, reactions, and associated data	Exclusive focus on natural products
Key Strength	Largest curated chemical registry; powerful substructure search	Integration of reaction and property data; intuitive interface	Deep, specialized curation and historical literature for NPs
Access Cost	High (Academic ~$6,600+/year) [1]	High (Academic ~$40,000+/year) [1]	High (Academic ~$6,600+/year) [1]

Table 2: Scope and Application in Research

Aspect	SciFinder	Reaxys	Dictionary of Natural Products (DNP)
Thematic Coverage	Generalistic (all chemistry)	Generalistic (all chemistry)	Specialized (Natural Products)
Data Types	Substances, reactions, patents, journals, bioactivity	Substances, reactions, properties, literature	Structures, names, source organisms, isolation references, properties
Ideal For	Broad chemical exploration, patent research, substructure searching	Reaction planning, retrieval of experimental properties	Dedicated natural products discovery and dereplication

Methodologies for Comparative Analysis and Temporal Trend Assessment

To objectively evaluate and compare the content of these databases, researchers can employ specific computational and cheminformatic protocols. These methodologies are essential for moving beyond feature lists to a quantitative understanding of the structural data each database contains, particularly in the context of temporal trends.

Experimental Protocol for Structural Evolution Analysis

A time-dependent chemoinformatic analysis can reveal how the natural product landscape within a database has changed, reflecting trends in discovery and isolation techniques [2].

1. Data Acquisition and Curation:

• Data Extraction: Download structural data (e.g., as SMILES, SDF files) for all natural product entries from the database(s) under study.
• Temporal Grouping: Sort the molecules in chronological order based on their date of discovery or first report (often linked to the CAS Registry Number assignment year). Divide the sorted list into sequential groups, for example, each containing 5,000 molecules [2].
• Standardization: Curate and standardize the molecular structures to ensure consistency. This includes neutralizing charges, removing duplicates, and checking for valency errors.

2. Molecular Descriptor Calculation: For each temporal group, calculate a set of physicochemical properties that characterize molecular size, complexity, and drug-likeness. Key descriptors include [2]:

• Molecular Weight (MW)
• Number of Heavy Atoms
• Calculated LogP (cLogP) to estimate hydrophobicity
• Number of Rotatable Bonds as a measure of flexibility
• Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA)
• Number of Rings, Aromatic Rings, and Stereocenters

3. Scaffold and Fragment Analysis: Generate and analyze core molecular frameworks to understand structural diversity and complexity trends.

• Bemis-Murcko Scaffolds: Deconstruct molecules into their central core ring systems and linkers [2].
• Ring Systems: Analyze the distribution of ring types (e.g., aliphatic vs. aromatic) and sizes over time [2].
• RECAP Fragments: Break molecules at synthetically accessible bonds to identify common building blocks and their historical prevalence [30].

4. Chemical Space Visualization: Use dimensionality reduction techniques to project high-dimensional descriptor data into 2D or 3D maps for visualization.

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): To observe the distribution and variance of different temporal groups [2].
• Tree Map (TMAP): An alternative visualization that uses a hierarchical, tree-like structure to display high-dimensional data, allowing for easy visual assessment of structural diversity and clustering between time periods [2].

The following workflow diagram illustrates this experimental protocol:

Beyond the primary commercial databases, a modern natural products research workflow relies on a suite of computational tools and data resources.

Table 3: Key Resources for Natural Products Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Database Research
RDKit [30]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Provides algorithms for cheminformatics and machine learning.	Calculating molecular descriptors, generating fingerprints, and structural standardization.
PubChem [63]	Open Chemistry Database	Repository of chemical structures, properties, and bioactivities.	Useful for cross-referencing and as a large-scale public comparator for chemical space analysis.
COCONUT [12]	Open NP Collection	A non-redundant collection of >400,000 open-access NPs.	Provides a large, open dataset for benchmarking and augmenting studies of structural diversity.
CAS Registry Number [1]	Universal Identifier	A unique identifier assigned by CAS to every chemical substance.	Critical for tracking compounds across databases and performing accurate temporal analysis.
ChEMBL [30]	Bioactive Molecules Database	A manually curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties.	Used for analyzing the biological relevance and mechanism of action of natural products.

The comparative analysis of SciFinder, Reaxys, and the Dictionary of Natural Products reveals a landscape defined by depth, quality, and specialization. While open-access databases like COCONUT provide unprecedented breadth with over 400,000 compounds, the commercial giants distinguish themselves through rigorous manual curation, comprehensive referencing, and integration with vast networks of chemical and reaction data [12] [1]. The DNP stands out for its exclusive focus on natural products and its reputation as the most complete curated resource in its niche [1] [62].

From the perspective of structural evolution, these databases are not merely static repositories but are dynamic reflections of a changing field. Temporal analyses conducted on such datasets show that newly discovered natural products are trending towards larger molecular sizes, increased complexity (with more rings and stereocenters), and higher hydrophobicity, a trend enabled by advances in separation and structure elucidation technologies [2]. In contrast, the chemical space of synthetic compounds, while broader, appears to evolve under different constraints, such as synthetic accessibility and drug-like rules [2]. This underlines the critical, ongoing role of natural products in inspiring novel scaffolds for drug discovery.

In conclusion, the choice among SciFinder, Reaxys, and the DNP is not a matter of identifying a single "best" database, but rather of selecting the most appropriate tool for a specific research question. SciFinder offers unparalleled comprehensiveness for wide-ranging chemical exploration. Reaxys excels in linking compounds to reaction data and experimental properties. The DNP provides unmatched depth and historical context for the dedicated natural products chemist. Understanding their distinct contents and applying robust cheminformatic methodologies allows researchers to not only mine these resources effectively but also to contribute to the broader understanding of chemical evolution and its implications for future discovery.

This guide provides an objective comparison of three major open-access databases for natural products (NPs) and commercially available compounds: COCONUT, SuperNatural II (and its successor SuperNatural 3.0), and ZINC. For researchers in drug discovery and chemical biology, the choice of database is critical and depends primarily on the project's goal: COCONUT offers the largest dedicated collection of elucidated NPs, SuperNatural specializes in mechanistic predictions and vendor information, and ZINC provides unparalleled access to purchasable, ready-to-screen compound libraries. The following analysis, supported by quantitative data and experimental workflows, delineates their distinct roles in modern research.

Table 1: Core Database Characteristics at a Glance

Feature	COCONUT	SuperNatural II / 3.0	ZINC
Primary Focus	Comprehensive collection of open NPs [64]	NPs and NP-derived derivatives, vendor info [65] [66]	Purchasable and synthesizable small molecules for virtual screening [67] [68] [69]
Total Compounds	~406,000 unique NPs (2020); over 730,000 with stereochemistry [64]	SuperNatural II: ~326,000; SuperNatural 3.0: ~449,000 unique compounds [65] [66]	ZINC20: ~230 million purchasable; ZINC-22: ~55 billion synthesizable (2025) [67] [68]
Key Strength	Largest open, deduplicated NP collection; broad source aggregation [1] [64]	Mechanism of action, toxicity predictions, and pathway associations [65] [66]	Integration of purchasability with biological annotations; ready-to-dock 3D formats [68] [69]
Temporal Trend	Represents the trend towards aggregation and quality control of existing NP data [70] [64]	Illustrates the evolution from a compound list to a resource with predictive bioactivity insights [65] [66]	Exemplifies the massive scaling towards enumerated, synthesizable chemical space [68]

In-Depth Database Analysis and Comparison

COCONUT (COlleCtion of Open Natural prodUcTs)

COCONUT was created to address the fragmentation of NP data by aggregating compounds from over 50 open sources into a single, unified resource [64]. Its mission is to provide a comprehensive foundation for NP research without commercial restrictions.

• Content and Curation: The database contains over 406,000 unique, "flat" (no stereochemistry) natural products, and more than 730,000 structures when stereochemistry is preserved [64]. A rigorous curation pipeline is employed, which includes structure checking, standardization of tautomers and ionization states, and unification of entries based on InChI keys [64]. Each compound is assigned an annotation quality score from 1 to 5 stars, providing users with immediate insight into data reliability [64].
• Special Features: Beyond structure and name, COCONUT computes a wide array of molecular descriptors and properties. It also provides specialized annotations such as NP-likeness scores and deglycosylated structures, which are invaluable for studying compound aglycons [64]. Its web interface offers substructure and similarity searches, and the entire dataset can be downloaded for local use.

SuperNatural II and SuperNatural 3.0

The SuperNatural database has evolved from a resource of ~50,000 compounds in 2006 to SuperNatural II with ~326,000 molecules, and to the current SuperNatural 3.0, which contains approximately 449,058 unique natural compounds [65] [66]. Its defining feature is the integration of predictive bioactivity data.

• Content and Predictive Insights: The database aggregates compounds from multiple suppliers and open databases [65]. For a vast number of entries, it provides predicted toxicity classes (using tools like ProTox), mechanism of action (by mapping structural similarity to drugs with known targets), and information on biosynthetic and degradation pathways [65]. SuperNatural 3.0 has expanded this to include drug-like chemical space predictions for diseases like antiviral and antibacterial, and even taste profiles [66].
• Utility in Drug Discovery: This focus on bioactivity makes SuperNatural particularly useful for generating initial hypotheses. A researcher can start with a known drug and find structurally similar natural compounds, or search for all compounds predicted to act on a specific target protein [65].

ZINC

ZINC is a cornerstone for computational virtual screening. Its primary focus is not on being a comprehensive NP repository, but on providing access to commercially available or synthesizable compounds in ready-to-use formats [68] [69].

• Scale and Purchasability: ZINC has grown exponentially from 728,000 compounds in 2005 to over 230 million "in-stock" and 750 million searchable analogs in ZINC20 [67] [68]. The latest version, ZINC-22, encompasses a staggering 37 to 55 billion compounds, the vast majority from "make-on-demand" libraries [68]. This represents a strategic shift from cataloging existing stock to mapping the vast space of tangibly synthesizable molecules [68].
• Ready-to-Dock Workflow: A key feature is the provision of compounds in biologically relevant, ready-to-dock 3D formats (e.g., MOL2, SDF). The database precomputes protonation states, tautomers, and multiple low-energy conformers, saving researchers significant preprocessing time [68] [69]. ZINC also annotates compounds with biological data from sources like ChEMBL and DrugBank, allowing for the creation of target-focused libraries [69].

Table 2: Specialized Features and Research Applications

Application	COCONUT	SuperNatural	ZINC
Virtual Screening	Good for large-scale NP-focused screening [64]	Good for bioactivity-pre-screened NPs [65]	Excellent for ultralarge screening of purchasable compounds [68]
Dereplication	Strong, due to extensive aggregation and unique identifier system [64]	Moderate, can identify known bioactivities [65]	Not a primary function
Bioactivity Prediction	Limited; provides NP-likeness score [64]	Primary strength: MoA, toxicity, pathway data [65] [66]	Strong; links to known ligands and targets via similarity [69]
Chemical Procurement	Not a focus	Provides vendor information for many compounds [65]	Primary strength: Direct links to suppliers for in-stock and make-on-demand compounds [67] [68]

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

The utility of these databases is realized through their integration into standard computational research pipelines. The diagram below illustrates a typical workflow for virtual screening and hypothesis generation.

Figure 1: A generalized computational workflow for natural product and compound screening, showing the entry points for different databases.

Protocol for Virtual Screening Using ZINC

This protocol is tailored for a structure-based virtual screening campaign to identify purchasable hits for a protein target.

• Target Preparation: Obtain the 3D structure of the target protein (e.g., from the Protein Data Bank). Prepare the structure by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning protonation states, and removing water molecules, using software like UCSF Chimera or Schrodinger's Protein Preparation Wizard.
• Library Selection and Download:
  • Navigate to the ZINC database (https://zinc.docking.org).
  • Use the "Subsets" navigation to select a relevant subset, such as "Lead-Like," "Drug-Like," or a "Natural Product-like" subset [68] [69].
  • Apply any desired filters (e.g., by molecular weight, logP).
  • Download the library in a ready-to-dock 3D format such as MOL2 or SDF.
• Molecular Docking: Perform docking simulations using software like AutoDock Vina, DOCK, or Glide. The pre-formatted files from ZINC are directly compatible with these programs.
• Hit Analysis and Procurement:
  • Analyze the top-ranking docked compounds for binding modes and interactions.
  • Use the ZINC identifier for each hit to access its vendor information and purchase the compound for experimental validation [68].

Protocol for Bioactivity Exploration Using SuperNatural 3.0

This methodology is used to generate mechanistic hypotheses for a natural product of interest.

• Compound Query: On the SuperNatural 3.0 website, input the compound of interest using its name, structure, or physicochemical properties.
• Data Extraction: From the compound's result page, extract the following predicted data:
  • Predicted Toxicity Class: Based on LD50 values in rodents [65].
  • Mechanism of Action: Identify potential target proteins based on structural similarity (Tanimoto coefficient ≥ 0.8) to known drugs [65].
  • Pathway Information: Review associated biosynthesis and degradation pathways.
• Hypothesis Generation and Testing: Use the predicted targets and pathways to design in vitro or in vivo experiments to confirm the hypothesized bioactivity.

The following tools and databases are critical for executing the experimental protocols and maximizing the value of the compound databases.

Table 3: Key Resources for Computational Natural Product Research

Resource Name	Type	Function in Workflow
RDKit	Cheminformatics Software	An open-source toolkit for cheminformatics used to calculate molecular descriptors, standardize structures, and perform substructure searching [65] [15].
ClassyFire	Web API / Tool	Automates the hierarchical chemical classification of compounds, enabling the grouping of NPs by their chemical ontology (e.g., alkaloids, flavonoids) [64].
NPClassifier	Deep Learning Tool	A specialized classifier that categorizes NPs based on structural features, biosynthetic pathway, and source organism [15] [64].
ProTox	Web Server	Predicts the toxicity of small molecules by categorizing them into LD50-based toxicity classes [65].
ChEMBL Database	Bioactivity Database	A large-scale curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties; used by ZINC and others for bioactivity annotations [70] [69].
OMEGA	Conformation Generation Software	Used by the ZINC database to generate the multiple low-energy 3D conformers provided in its ready-to-dock libraries [68].

The structural evolution of natural product databases reveals clear temporal trends: from simple electronic catalogs (SuperNatural II), to comprehensive, quality-controlled aggregations (COCONUT), and finally to the integration with vast, tangible chemical space for immediate experimental application (ZINC). There is no single "best" database. The choice is strategic:

• Choose COCONUT when your research requires the broadest possible coverage of elucidated natural products for mining, dereplication, or comprehensive virtual screening.
• Choose SuperNatural 3.0 when your goal is to understand or predict the potential mechanism of action, toxicity, or biosynthetic origin of a natural compound.
• Choose ZINC when your project aims to move rapidly from a computational screen to experimental testing, leveraging the power of purchasable and synthesizable chemical space.

Understanding these distinctions allows researchers to efficiently leverage these open-access powerhouses to accelerate discovery in pharmacology, chemical ecology, and beyond.

The systematic study of natural products (NPs) has undergone a significant transformation with the creation of specialized databases that catalog traditional medicine knowledge and phytochemical data. This evolution is characterized by a distinct structural shift from localized, fragmented records to sophisticated, digitally integrated platforms that enable network pharmacology analyses and chemoinformatic profiling. Between 1981 and 2014, over 50% of newly developed drugs were natural product-based, highlighting their enduring importance in drug discovery [71]. This guide provides an objective comparison of regional databases dedicated to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Ayurveda, Latin American traditional medicine, and African traditional medicine, framing the analysis within the broader context of structural trends in natural product database research.

Comparative Analysis of Regional Database Architectures

Table 1: Comprehensive comparison of regional natural product database features and contents.

Database/Region	Total Compounds	Herbs/Organisms	Targets/Proteins	Diseases/Conditions	Unique Structural Features
TCM (TCMBank)	61,966 [72]	9,192 [72]	15,179 [72]	32,529 [72]	3D structures, herb-ingredient-target-disease mapping, AI-based DDI prediction [72]
Latin America (Combined)	~3,108+	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	High scaffold diversity, region-specific plant metabolites, structural complexity [73]
∟ NuBBEDB (Brazil)	>2,000 [73]	Plants, fungi, insects, marine organisms [73]	Not specified	Annotated with biological activities [73]	12% unique scaffolds not in ChEMBL, drug-like properties [73]
∟ CIFPMA (Panama)	454 [73]	Panamanian flora [73]	Not specified	Anti-HIV, antioxidants, anticancer [73]	Tested in >25 bioassays, high structural diversity [73]
∟ UNIIQUIM (Mexico)	Not specified	Plants, fungi, marine organisms, insects [73]	Not specified	Not specified	Focus on Mexican biodiversity [73]
Africa (ETM-DB)	4,285 [74]	1,054 [74]	11,621 [74]	1,465 therapeutic uses [74]	876 compounds with drug-like properties, ADMET profiling [74]
Ayurveda (Argentina)	17 Rasayana plants identified [75]	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Integration with local flora, academic training programs [75]

Structural and Functional Capabilities

Table 2: Technical capabilities and accessibility features of regional databases.

Database/Region	Access Status	Search Capabilities	Data Integration	Specialized Tools
TCM (TCMBank)	Freely accessible [72]	Herb-ingredient-target-disease exploration [72]	Links to CAS, DrugBank, PubChem, MeSH [72]	Deep learning-based herb-drug interaction prediction [72]
Latin America (NuBBEDB)	Freely accessible [73]	Species, geographical region, biological properties, chemical structure [73]	Available on ChemSpider, ZINC, COCONUT [73]	In silico ADMET profiling, druggability assessment [73]
Africa (ETM-DB)	Freely accessible [74]	Herb, compound, target gene/protein search [74]	NCBI Taxonomy, PubChem, ChemSpider links [74]	ADMET properties, drug-likeness screening using FAF-Drugs4 [74]
Ayurveda (Argentina)	Academic/instructional	Course-based access [75]	Local plant adaptation	Educational integration with conventional medicine [75]

Methodological Approaches in Database Construction and Utilization

Database Development Workflows

Data Collection and Curation Protocols The construction of regional natural product databases follows systematic workflows for data acquisition, standardization, and enrichment. The Ethiopian Traditional Herbal Medicine and Phytochemicals Database (ETM-DB) development exemplifies this process: researchers manually curated data from 48 research articles, 10 theses, 3 books, and 5 public databases, followed by standardization of herb names using The Plant List database and cross-referencing with NCBI Taxonomy and COCONUT for compound data [74]. Similarly, TCMBank employed natural language processing and intelligent document identification modules to extract information from diverse sources, with all TCM-related information manually verified by volunteers at least twice to ensure reliability [72].

Cheminformatic Processing Pipeline Databases increasingly incorporate computational ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, Toxicity) profiling to assess drug-likeness of natural compounds. ETM-DB utilized FAF-Drugs4 webserver to evaluate drug-likeness properties, finding that 876 of 4,285 compounds (20.4%) possessed acceptable drug-like characteristics [74]. Latin American databases like NuBBEDB have been analyzed using established chemoinformatic tools to assess structural diversity, complexity, and coverage of chemical space compared to commercial and non-commercial natural product collections [73].

Experimental Validation Methodologies

Network Pharmacology and Target Identification Modern natural product databases enable systematic investigation of mechanism of action through network pharmacology approaches. A comparative study of Beninese and Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19 treatment exemplifies this methodology: researchers identified six most frequently used herbs (Citrus aurantiifolia, Momordica charantia, Ocimum gratissimum, Crateva adansonii, Azadirachta indica, and Zanthoxylum zanthoxyloides) through ethnomedicinal surveys, then applied network pharmacology to identify quercetin, kaempferol, and β-sitosterol as main active ingredients [76]. Target and pathway enrichment analyses were conducted using databases including IPA and visualized with Cytoscape software, revealing shared anti-inflammatory and oxidative stress relief pathways between Beninese and Chinese herbal approaches [76].

In Vitro Validation Protocols The same study implemented comprehensive experimental validation: researchers measured viability of BEAS-2B cells and release of inflammatory factors after administration of identified active compounds, confirming that six major compounds could protect bronchial epithelial cells against injury by inhibiting expression of inflammatory factors, with quercetin and isoimperatorin showing particular efficacy [76]. Binding capacities to COVID-19 related targets were further verified through molecular docking studies, demonstrating good binding potential between the identified compounds and viral targets [76].

Database Development and Validation Workflow

Table 3: Key research reagents and computational tools for natural product database research.

Tool/Reagent	Type	Primary Function	Application Example
Cytoscape	Software	Network visualization and analysis	Visualizing herb-compound-target-disease relationships [76]
FAF-Drugs4	Web server	Drug-likeness property screening	Identifying 876 drug-like compounds from 4,285 in ETM-DB [74]
BEAS-2B Cells	Cell line	Human bronchial epithelial model	Testing anti-COVID-19 activity of herbal compounds [76]
Molecular Docking Software	Computational tool	Predicting compound-target interactions	Verifying binding of natural compounds to COVID-19 targets [76]
ADMET Prediction Tools	Cheminformatic	Estimating absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, toxicity	Profiling compound properties in ETM-DB and NuBBEDB [74] [73]
ELISA Kits	Laboratory reagent	Quantifying inflammatory cytokines	Measuring anti-inflammatory effects of herbal compounds [76]

Integration Trends and Future Directions

The structural evolution of natural product databases reveals a clear trajectory toward greater integration with modern drug discovery paradigms. The WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014-2023 has encouraged member states to integrate traditional medicine into healthcare systems, promoting universal health coverage through the incorporation of traditional medicine services [77]. This has catalyzed the formation of academic consortia for integrative medicine in multiple countries including Brazil (2017) as part of a global movement [77].

Regional databases are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches, as demonstrated by TCMBank's deep learning-based Chinese-Western medicine exclusion prediction system [72]. The proposed Latin American Natural Products Database (LANaPD) represents another evolutionary trend toward unified regional resources that would facilitate larger-scale comparative analyses and drug discovery initiatives [73]. Future developments are likely to focus on multi-omics integration, expanded clinical correlation data, and more sophisticated prediction algorithms for identifying bioactive natural products and potential drug interactions.

This comparative analysis demonstrates that while TCM databases currently lead in scale and AI integration, African and Latin American resources show distinctive strengths in regional biodiversity representation and drug-likeness screening capabilities. Ayurvedic knowledge, while globally practiced, shows emerging formal database development in Latin American academic settings. Together, these resources represent valuable and complementary assets for natural product-based drug discovery, each contributing unique structural and chemical elements to the global natural products landscape.

The research field of natural products (NPs) is experiencing a profound structural evolution, increasingly driven by computational and data-centric approaches. Natural products, defined as chemicals produced by living organisms to accomplish functions like defense or signaling, have been a cornerstone in developing therapeutic agents, with estimates suggesting over 50% of new drugs from 1981 to 2014 were developed from them [12]. However, the traditional model of resource-heavy, assay-guided exploration is being supplemented by high-throughput in silico screening. This shift places unprecedented importance on the digital databases that catalog these compounds. The landscape of these databases is both vast and volatile; a recent review identified over 120 different NP databases published since 2000, of which only 50 are open access and many are no longer maintained, leading to a dramatic loss of valuable data [12]. This temporal trend underscores a critical need for robust, well-maintained, and feature-rich databases. The metadata richness, ease of data access, and frequency of updates are no longer secondary concerns but primary factors that determine the pace and success of modern NP research. This guide provides an objective benchmarking of prominent natural product databases, evaluating them against these critical criteria to aid researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in navigating this complex ecosystem.

Methodology for Database Benchmarking

To ensure a fair and quantitative comparison, we established a structured benchmarking protocol focusing on three core pillars. The following subsections detail the experimental and evaluation criteria used to score each database.

Experimental Protocol for Metadata Richness Assessment

The assessment of metadata richness was conducted by systematically inventorying the types of annotations available for the natural product structures within each database. The protocol involved:

• Structural Metadata Audit: Checking for the presence and completeness of key chemical descriptors, including stereochemical information, physicochemical properties (e.g., molecular weight, LogP, topological polar surface area), and structural classifications [12] [15] [30].
• Biological Annotation Inventory: Documenting the availability of biological source data (e.g., organism, taxonomy), biological activity data (e.g., antimicrobial, antitumor), mechanism of action (MoA) predictions, and links to established pathway databases like KEGG [78] [30].
• Spectroscopic Data Verification: Identifying the inclusion of experimental or computed spectral data for techniques such as IR, HRMS, MS, UV, and HNMR, which are crucial for compound identification [78].
• Cross-Reference Analysis: Evaluating the extent of integration with other major chemical and biological databases through links and identifiers, such as Literature DOIs, HMDB, ZINC, ChEMBL, and UniProt [78] [30].

Protocol for Evaluating Download Ease and Update Frequency

The accessibility and currentness of data were evaluated using the following methodology:

• Access Model Classification: Databases were categorized as "Open Access" (freely downloadable), "Registration Required" (free but requires user sign-up), or "Commercial" (requires a paid license or subscription) [12].
• Data Format and Integrity Check: The availability of data in standardized, machine-readable formats (e.g., SDF, SMILES) was assessed. The use of chemical curation pipelines, such as the ChEMBL standardizer, to ensure structural validity was also noted [15].
• Update Status Verification: The maintenance status was determined by checking for version numbers with release dates and reviewing publication records or official announcements for evidence of recent updates. A database was considered "Maintained" if an update was confirmed within the last two years [12].
• Historical Longevity Analysis: The review of historical data on database accessibility, as provided in prior comprehensive studies, was used to gauge stability and the risk of obsolescence [12].

The following table details key computational tools and resources that are fundamental to working with natural products databases, as featured in the benchmarking experiments and contemporary research workflows.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Application
RDKit	An open-source cheminformatics toolkit used for calculating molecular descriptors, fingerprint generation, structural sanitization, and molecular visualization [15] [30].
NPClassifier	A deep learning tool for the automated classification of natural products based on their biosynthetic pathway, structural class, and superclass [15].
NP-Score	A Bayesian algorithm that calculates a natural product-likeness score, helping to determine how closely a molecule resembles known natural products [15].
ChEMBL Curation Pipeline	A standardized workflow for checking, validating, and standardizing chemical structures according to FDA/IUPAC guidelines, often used to prepare high-quality datasets [15].
ChemAxon	Commercial software suite providing tools for chemical structure representation, standardization, and property prediction, used in some database back-ends [30].
VirtualTaste Models	A predictive tool used to forecast the taste profile of molecules, exemplified in databases like SuperNatural 3.0 for food science applications [30].

Results: Comparative Analysis of Natural Product Databases

The application of the benchmarking methodology yielded a quantitative comparison of several major databases. The results are summarized in the following sections and tables.

The table below provides a consolidated view of the performance of selected databases across the key benchmarking criteria.

Table 2: Natural Product Databases Benchmarking Summary

Database Name	Type & Size	Metadata Richness Highlights	Download Ease	Update Frequency (Status)
COCONUT	Open Collection; >400,000 NPs [12]	Structures, sparse annotations; ~12% lack stereochemistry [12] [4]	Open Access [12]	Compiled from open resources; specific update cycle not stated [12]
SuperNatural 3.0	Open Database; ~449,000 NPs [30]	Pathways, MoA, toxicity, vendors, taste prediction, physicochemical data [30]	Open Access, no registration [30]	Updated in 2022 (Maintained) [30]
Wiley Identifier (AntiBase)	Commercial Library; >105,000 NPs [78]	Biological activity, spectral data (IR, MS, HNMR), chemical properties, literature links [78]	Commercial [78] [12]	Updated in 2025 (Actively Maintained) [78]
67M NP-Like Database	Open Generated Library; 67 Million NPs [15]	NP-likeness score, biosynthetic pathway classification, physicochemical descriptors [15]	Open Access [15]	Published 2023; large-scale generation [15]
AnalytiCon Discovery MEGx	Commercial & Open Subset; >5,000 NPs [12]	Structures with stereochemistry (44% complete in open subset) [12]	Registration Required for full set [12]	Maintained and Updated [12]

In-Depth Database Profiles

COCONUT (COlleCtion of Open NatUral prodUcTs) stands as the largest open collection of NPs, created by consolidating open-access resources. Its primary strength is its scale and openness. However, this comes with a trade-off in data homogeneity and quality; the collection suffers from inconsistent stereochemical information, with nearly 12% of molecules having stereocenters lacking defined configurations [12] [4]. Its metadata is also described as "sparse" compared to more curated resources [12].

SuperNatural 3.0 is a prime example of a highly curated, feature-rich open database. It goes beyond basic structures to offer extensive metadata, including predicted mechanisms of action, toxicity classes, association with therapeutic pathways, and vendor information [30]. A unique feature is its use of the VirtualTaste model to predict compound taste, highlighting its application in food science. Its open-access model with no registration barrier makes it highly accessible for researchers [30].

Wiley Identifier of Natural Products (AntiBase Library) is a commercial powerhouse known for its high-quality, analytical chemistry-focused metadata. Its richness lies in the inclusion of extensive spectroscopic data (IR, MS, HNMR, UV) and links to biological activity data, making it an indispensable tool for dereplication and compound identification [78]. The 2025 release confirms its status as an actively maintained and updated commercial resource [78].

The 67M NP-Like Database represents a modern temporal trend: the use of deep generative models (specifically a Recurrent Neural Network) to massively expand NP chemical space [15]. This database is not a collection of known compounds but a generated library of natural product-like molecules. Its key metadata includes NP-likeness scores and biosynthetic pathway classifications, enabling the virtual screening of novel scaffolds far beyond known NPs [15].

Discussion and Future Trends in Database Evolution

The benchmarking results reveal a clear trade-off in the natural product database landscape. A dichotomy exists between large-scale, open collections (e.g., COCONUT) and smaller, highly curated resources (e.g., SuperNatural 3.0, Wiley AntiBase). The former provides breadth, which is essential for comprehensive virtual screening, while the latter offers the depth of annotation required for targeted research and experimental validation. A significant evolutionary trend is the move from purely observational databases to predictive and generative ones. The 67-million-compound database [15] and tools like NatGen for 3D structure prediction [4] exemplify this shift, leveraging artificial intelligence to overcome the limitations of manually curated data and explore novel chemical space.

The critical importance of update frequency and maintenance is starkly highlighted by the historical data; many databases become inaccessible over time, leading to irreversible data loss [12]. Therefore, a database's active maintenance status is as important as its content when selecting a resource for long-term research projects. As the field progresses, the integration of these various resources—combining the scale of open collections, the rich metadata of curated databases, and the predictive power of AI tools—will be key to accelerating natural product discovery in drug development and other fields.

Visualized Workflows and Relationships

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationships and data flow between the different types of databases identified in this benchmarking study, showcasing the modern NP research workflow.

Diagram 1: NP Database Research Workflow

Conclusion

The structural evolution of natural product databases over the past two decades reveals a clear trajectory from fragmented, commercial collections towards more integrated, open-access resources with richer annotations. This review synthesizes key takeaways: the field has successfully compiled vast chemical libraries, yet faces enduring challenges in data quality, accessibility, and long-term sustainability. The methodological applications of these databases have become central to computation-enabled drug discovery, powering everything from initial virtual screening to the construction of complex biological knowledge graphs. Looking forward, the future of NP databases lies in enhanced collaboration to prevent data loss, the development of AI-driven curation tools to manage scale and complexity, and a stronger emphasis on integrating diverse data types—from genomic biosynthetic pathways to clinical trial outcomes. For biomedical and clinical research, the continued maturation of these resources is paramount, promising to unlock the full potential of natural products as a source for novel therapeutics, functional foods, and cosmaceuticals, ultimately bridging the historic gap between traditional knowledge and modern molecular medicine.

References

• 1. Review on natural products databases: where to find data in 2020 | Journal of Cheminformatics | Full Text [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-020-00424-9]
• 2. Time-Dependent Comparison of the Structural Variations ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/21/11475]
• 3. Hypertension-gut microbiota research trends: a bibliometric ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378118/]
• 4. Accurate Structure Prediction of Natural Products with ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6820654c927d1c2e660f6511]
• 5. Open data vs. FAIR data: A comparison [https://www.nfdi4chem.de/open-data-vs-fair-data-a-comparison/]
• 6. FAIR vs OPEN Data Principles [https://fair-wizard.com/blog/fair-vs-open-data-principles]
• 7. Understanding FAIR vs Open Data in Life Sciences [https://ranchobiosciences.com/2025/01/unlocking-data-potential-understanding-fair-vs-open-data-in-life-sciences/]
• 8. FAIR data management: a framework for fostering data literacy ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02404-1]
• 9. Review of natural product databases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6495245/]
• 10. Multi-level advances in databases related to systems ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2023.1289901/full]
• 11. Nat-UV DB: A Natural Products Database Underlying... [https://f1000research.com/articles/14-157]
• 12. Review on natural products databases: where to find data in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7118820/]
• 13. Taxonomy-Focused Natural Product Databases for Carbon ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4532/2/3/6]
• 14. Emerging paradigms for target discovery of traditional medicines [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11910885/]
• 15. 67 million natural product-like compound database ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02207-x]
• 16. Natural product databases for drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773216924000163]
• 17. Cheminformatics to Characterize Pharmacologically Active ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7698493/]
• 18. Recent trends in the structural revision of natural products [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6013367/]
• 19. Chemical evolution of natural product structure for drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065774323000064]
• 20. Natural Products for Drug Discovery in the 21st Century [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6032166/]
• 21. Ultrahigh-Throughput Virtual Screening Strategies against ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12308805/]
• 22. computational methods for biosynthetic pathway design [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12159830/]
• 23. From data to discovery: leveraging big data in plant natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183336/]
• 24. Integrative omics approaches for biosynthetic pathway ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9491492/]
• 25. Toward a unified pipeline for natural product discovery [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/np/d5np00041f]
• 26. The Deconvolution Revolution: Strategies for Target ... [https://momentum.bio/content/the-deconvolution-revolution-strategies-for-target-identification/]
• 27. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 28. Retrospective analysis of natural products provides insights ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5465889/]
• 29. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-00114-z]
• 30. SuperNatural 3.0—a database of natural products and natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9825600/]
• 31. InflamNat: web-based database and predictor of anti ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9167499/]
• 32. Step-by-Step Guide to Building a Knowledge Graph in 2025 [https://www.pageon.ai/blog/knowledge-graph]
• 33. What is a Knowledge Graph? [https://www.actian.com/knowledge-graph/]
• 34. Knowledge Graph Application: 2025 Business Guide - Eliya [https://www.eliya.io/blog/marketing-data/knowledge-graph-application]
• 35. Time-Dependent Comparison of the Structural Variations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11547171/]
• 36. Query Knowledge Graphs with Billions of Triples in Less ... [https://www.stardog.com/blog/query-knowledge-graphs-with-billions-of-triples-in-less-time-than-it-takes-to-read-this-headline-about-performance-benchmarks/]
• 37. 7 Best Graph Databases in 2025 [https://www.puppygraph.com/blog/best-graph-databases]
• 38. A Beginner's Guide to Knowledge Graph Optimization in ... [https://www.pingcap.com/article/knowledge-graph-optimization-guide-2025/]
• 39. On the Evolution of Knowledge Graphs: A Survey and ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2310.04835v3]
• 40. A Comparative Analysis of Cheminformatics Platforms [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/cheminformatics-platforms-comparison]
• 41. A Curated List of Cheminformatics Software and Libraries [https://neovarsity.org/blogs/curated-list-cheminformatics-software-libraries]
• 42. Top Drug Discovery Software Solutions to Watch in 2025 [https://www.deepmirror.ai/post/top-drug-discovery-software-solutions-to-watch-in-2025]
• 43. Pausing the Internet [https://clp.law.harvard.edu/article/pausing-the-internet/]
• 44. Link Rot Rescue Project [https://www.starlinglab.org/case-studies-link-rot/]
• 45. The growing problem of Internet “link rot” and best ... [https://journalistsresource.org/media/website-linking-best-practices-media-online-publishers/]
• 46. Natural Products Research—Information for Researchers [https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/nutritional-interventions-and-natural-products-research-information-for-researchers]
• 47. The Chemical Validation and Standardization Platform (CVSP) [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-015-0072-8]
• 48. PubChem chemical structure standardization - PMC - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6086778/]
• 49. MARCUS: molecular annotation and recognition for curating ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00313j]
• 50. Standardization of Analytical Data: Best Practices [https://www.acdlabs.com/resource/standardization-of-analytical-data-best-practices/]
• 51. NPBS Atlas: a comprehensive data resource for exploring the ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01116-y]
• 52. A similarity-based target prediction tool for natural products [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482524014367]
• 53. Small molecule in situ resin capture provides a compound ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49367-x]
• 54. Trends and Pitfalls in the Progress of Network Pharmacology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12030339/]
• 55. Microbial natural product databases: Moving forward in the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7864863/]
• 56. DigFrag as a digital fragmentation method used for artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-024-01346-5]
• 57. Funding open access articles | Open science [https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/funding/articles]
• 58. Environmental sustainability funding policy - Funding Guidance [https://wellcome.org/research-funding/guidance/policies-grant-conditions/environmental-sustainability-funding-policy]
• 59. Explore Funding for Climate, Biodiversity & Sustainability ... [https://www2.fundsforngos.org/listing/25-grants-greener-planet-funding-climate-biodiversity-sustainability-projects-july-2025/]
• 60. InVEST - Stanford Natural Capital Project [https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest]
• 61. Resources [https://hive.greenfinanceinstitute.com/gfihive/useful-resources/]
• 62. Explore the Dictionary of Natural Products [https://www.routledge.com/go/the_dictionary_of_natural_products]
• 63. Alternatives to SciFinder-n - Conducting STEM Research ... [https://guides.zsr.wfu.edu/c.php?g=1238352&p=9121483]
• 64. COCONUT online: Collection of Open Natural Products ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-020-00478-9]
• 65. Super Natural II—a database of natural products - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4384003/]
• 66. SuperNatural - Database Commons [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/databasecommons/database/id/1597]
• 67. ZINC [https://zinc.docking.org/]
• 68. ZINC database [https://grokipedia.com/page/ZINC_database]
• 69. ZINC 15 – Ligand Discovery for Everyone - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4658288/]
• 70. A critical assessment of bioactive compounds databases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11221550/]
• 71. Progress and Impact of Latin American Natural Product ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/12/9/1202]
• 72. TCMBank-the largest TCM database provides deep ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01339-1]
• 73. Towards a unified Latin American Natural Products Database [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7491008/]
• 74. ETM-DB: integrated Ethiopian traditional herbal medicine and ... [https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12906-019-2634-1]
• 75. Twenty-Five Years of Academic Integration of Ayurveda in ... [https://www.ovid.com/journals/jimh/pdf/10.4103/jimh.jimh_16_25~twenty-five-years-of-academic-integration-of-ayurveda-in]
• 76. Comparison study of Beninese and Chinese herbal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874123000405]
• 77. A review of the WHO strategy on traditional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201178/]
• 78. Wiley announces latest release of its Wiley Identifier ... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250311/Wiley-announces-latest-release-of-its-Wiley-Identifier-of-Natural-Products.aspx]