Dataset Information

Review on natural products databases: where to find data in 2020.

ABSTRACT: Natural products (NPs) have been the centre of attention of the scientific community in the last decencies and the interest around them continues to grow incessantly. As a consequence, in the last 20 years, there was a rapid multiplication of various databases and collections as generalistic or thematic resources for NP information. In this review, we establish a complete overview of these resources, and the numbers are overwhelming: over 120 different NP databases and collections were published and re-used since 2000. 98 of them are still somehow accessible and only 50 are open access. The latter include not only databases but also big collections of NPs published as supplementary material in scientific publications and collections that were backed up in the ZINC database for commercially-available compounds. Some databases, even published relatively recently are already not accessible anymore, which leads to a dramatic loss of data on NPs. The data sources are presented in this manuscript, together with the comparison of the content of open ones. With this review, we also compiled the open-access natural compounds in one single dataset a COlleCtion of Open NatUral producTs (COCONUT), which is available on Zenodo and contains structures and sparse annotations for over 400,000 non-redundant NPs, which makes it the biggest open collection of NPs available to this date.

SUBMITTER: Sorokina M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7118820 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review on natural products databases: where to find data in 2020.

Sorokina Maria M Steinbeck Christoph C

Journal of cheminformatics 20200403 1

Natural products (NPs) have been the centre of attention of the scientific community in the last decencies and the interest around them continues to grow incessantly. As a consequence, in the last 20 years, there was a rapid multiplication of various databases and collections as generalistic or thematic resources for NP information. In this review, we establish a complete overview of these resources, and the numbers are overwhelming: over 120 different NP databases and collections were published ...[more]

PMID: 33431011

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review. However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates.Methods and findingsLiteratures regarding portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. They were divided into type-I (duplicates among different databases) and type-II (duplicate publications in different journals/issues) duplicates. For type-I duplicates, reference items were further compared between index and redundant papers. Of 10936 papers regarding PVT, 2399 and 1307 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 11.0% (1201/10936) and 6.1% (665/10936), respectively. They included 3431 type-I and 275 type-II duplicates. Of 11403 papers regarding BCS, 3275 and 2064 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 14.4% (1640/11403) and 9.1% (1039/11403), respectively. They included 5053 type-I and 286 type-II duplicates. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method (69.5%, 2385/3431 in PVT literatures; 64.6%, 3263/5053 in BCS literatures). Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method (94.9%, 261/275 in PVT literatures; 95.8%, 274/286 in BCS literatures). Compared with those identified by auto-searching method, type-I duplicates identified by hand-searching method had a significantly higher prevalence of wrong items (47/2385 versus 498/1046, p<0.0001 in PVT literatures; 30/3263 versus 778/1790, p<0.0001 in BCS literatures). Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database.ConclusionGiven the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined strategy of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.

Dataset Information

Review on natural products databases: where to find data in 2020.

Publications

Review on natural products databases: where to find data in 2020.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets