Retrospective analysis of natural products provides insights for future discovery trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the capacity of the natural world to produce secondary metabolites is important to a broad range of fields, including drug discovery, ecology, biosynthesis, and chemical biology, among others. Both the absolute number and the rate of discovery of natural products have increased significantly in recent years. However, there is a perception and concern that the fundamental novelty of these discoveries is decreasing relative to previously known natural products. This study presents a quantitative examination of the field from the perspective of both number of compounds and compound novelty using a dataset of all published microbial and marine-derived natural products. This analysis aimed to explore a number of key questions, such as how the rate of discovery of new natural products has changed over the past decades, how the average natural product structural novelty has changed as a function of time, whether exploring novel taxonomic space affords an advantage in terms of novel compound discovery, and whether it is possible to estimate how close we are to having described all of the chemical space covered by natural products. Our analyses demonstrate that most natural products being published today bear structural similarity to previously published compounds, and that the range of scaffolds readily accessible from nature is limited. However, the analysis also shows that the field continues to discover appreciable numbers of natural products with no structural precedent. Together, these results suggest that the development of innovative discovery methods will continue to yield compounds with unique structural and biological properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".