Structures Systems Connection Table

The WLN was applied to indexing the Chemical Structure Index (CSI) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) [13] and the Ituiex Chemicus Registry System (ICRS) as well as the Crossbow System of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICl). With the introduction of connection tables in the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) in 1965 and the advent of molecular editors in the 1970s, which directly produced connection tables, the WLN lost its importance. 

A connection table has been the predominant form of chemical structure representation in computer systems since the early 1980s and it is an alternative way of representing a molecular graph. Graph theory methods can equally well be applied to connection table representations of a molecule. 

Representation of such a system by a connection tabic having bonds between the iron atom and the five carbon atoms of either one of the two cyclopentadienyl rings is totally inadequate. A few other examples of structures that can no longer be adequately described by a standard connection table are given in the Section 2.G.2. 

Benzene has already been mentioned as a prime example of the inadequacy of a connection table description, as it cannot adequately be represented by a single valence bond structure. Consequently, whenever some property of an arbitrary molecule is accessed which is influenced by conjugation, the other possible resonance structures have to be at least generated and weighted. Attempts have already been made to derive adequate representations of r-electron systems [84, 85]. 

RAMSES is usually generated from molecular structures in a VB representation. The details of the connection table (localized charges, lone pairs, and bond orders) are kept within the model and are accessible for further processes. Bond orders are stored with the n-systems, while the number of free electrons is stored with the atoms. Upon modification oF a molecule (e.g., in systems dealing with reactions), the VB representation has to be generated in an adapted Form from the RAMSES notation. 

An heuristic program written by Shelley (10) has been adapted for our computer system to display molecular structures and substructures from connectivity tables. Since the molecular structure and substructure representations are stored in a unique, irredundant form, the structure drawings facilitate visual comparison for commonalities. 

All the compounds in this file have been registered (at the time Figure 6 was prepared the CAS data was not yet merged into the CRYST system) by the CAS and their connection tables have been merged into the file. This data base is therefore searchable on a structural or substructural basis, as are all the other files of the CIS. 

The most advanced computer version, CLOGP-3, is really a log P modelling system that is, all the numerical data to operate it resides in tables which can conveniently be changed or updated. Figure 2 illustrates two kinds of structure entry which can provide the suitable connection table input for benzoic acid ... 

Eakin [13] describes the chemical structure information system at Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., where registration is based on Wiswesser Line Notation. For connection tables, the unique, unambiguous representation is derived automatically, i.e., a single, invariant numbering of the connection table is algorithmically derived. 

With the variety of chemical substance representations, i.e., fragment codes, systematic nomenclature, linear notations, and connection tables, a diversity of approaches and techniques are used for substructure searching. Whereas unique, unambiguous representations are essential for some registration processes, it is important to note that this often cannot be used to advantage in substructure searching. With connection tables, there is no assurance that the atoms cited in the substructure will be cited in the same order as the corresponding atoms in the structure. With nomenclature or notation representation systems, a substructural unit may be described by different terms or... 

The conversion from a connection table to other unambiguous representations is substantially more difficult. The connection table is the least structured representation and incorporates no concepts of chemical significance beyond the list of atoms, bonds, and connections. A complex set of rules must be applied in order to derive nomenclature and linear notation representations. To translate from these more structured representations to a connection table requires primarily the interpretation of symbols and syntax. The opposite conversion, from the connection table to linear notation, nomenclature, or coordinate representation first requires the detailed analysis of the connection table to identify appropriate substructural units. The complex ordering rules of the nomenclature or notation system or the esthetic rules for graphic display are then applied to derive the desired representation. 

With any of the systems discussed, it is very likely that an incorrect connection table will be built if there are no specific rules to detect that a structure diagram contains a feature that is unusual or conveys an ambiguous situation. Some of these difficult features that have been identified are discussed below. 

---