Will we ever be able to accurately predict solubility?

Accurate prediction of thermodynamic solubility by machine learning remains a challenge. Recent models often display good performances, but their reliability may be deceiving when used prospectively. This study investigates the origins of these discrepancies, following three directions: a historical perspective, an analysis of the aqueous solubility dataverse and data quality. We investigated over 20 years of published solubility datasets and models, highlighting overlooked datasets and the overlaps between popular sets. We benchmarked recently published models on a novel curated solubility dataset and report poor performances. We also propose a workflow to cure aqueous solubility data aiming at producing useful models for bench chemist. Our results demonstrate that some state-of-the-art models are not ready for public usage because they lack a well-defined applicability domain and overlook historical data sources. We report the impact of factors influencing the utility of the models: interlaboratory standard deviation, ionic state of the solute and data sources. The herein obtained models, and quality-assessed datasets are publicly available.

Kinetic solubility: Experimental and machine-learning modeling perspectives

Kinetic aqueous or buffer solubility is important parameter measuring suitability of compounds for high throughput assays in early drug discovery while thermodynamic solubility is reserved for later stages of drug discovery and development. Kinetic solubility is also considered to have low inter-laboratory reproducibility because of its sensitivity to protocol parameters [1]. Presumably, this is why little efforts have been put to build QSPR models for kinetic in comparison to thermodynamic aqueous solubility. Here, we investigate the reproducibility and modelability of kinetic solubility assays. We first analyzed the relationship between kinetic and thermodynamic solubility data, and then examined the consistency of data from different kinetic assays. In this contribution, we report differences between kinetic and thermodynamic solubility data that are consistent with those reported by others [1, 2] and good agreement between data from different kinetic solubility campaigns in contrast to general expectations. The latter is confirmed by achieving high performing QSPR models trained on merged kinetic solubility datasets. The poor performance of QSPR model trained on thermodynamic solubility when applied to kinetic solubility dataset reinforces the conclusion that kinetic and thermodynamic solubilities do not correlate: one cannot be used as an ersatz for the other. This encourages for building predictive models for kinetic solubility. The kinetic solubility QSPR model developed in this study is freely accessible through the Predictor web service of the Laboratory of Chemoinformatics (https://chematlas.chimie.unistra.fr/cgi-bin/predictor2.cgi).