Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Predicting Reaction Outcomes02:24

Predicting Reaction Outcomes

9.1K
Kinetics describes the rate and path by which a reaction occurs. In contrast, thermodynamics deals with state functions and describes the properties, behavior, and components of a system. It is not concerned with the path taken by the process and cannot address the rate at which a reaction occurs. Although it does provide information about what can happen during a reaction process, it does not describe the detailed steps of what appears on an atomic or a molecular level. On the other hand,...
9.1K
Predicting Products: SN1 vs. SN202:27

Predicting Products: SN1 vs. SN2

13.1K
Nucleophilic substitution reactions of alkyl halides can proceed via an SN1 or an SN2 mechanism. While in SN2 reactions, the nucleophile attacks the substrate simultaneously as the leaving group departs, in SN1 reactions, the substrate first dissociates to give the carbocation intermediate. Various factors such as the structure of the substrate, the strength of the nucleophile, and the nature of the solvent promote one mechanism over the other.
With increased substitution on the alkyl halide,...
13.1K
Predicting Products: Substitution vs. Elimination02:52

Predicting Products: Substitution vs. Elimination

11.1K
When a nucleophile and an alkyl halide react, nucleophilic substitution and β-elimination reactions compete to generate products.
The following factors can influence the mechanisms competing against each other:
11.1K
Crossed Aldol Reactions: Overview01:04

Crossed Aldol Reactions: Overview

5.4K
Crossed aldol addition is the reaction between two different carbonyl compounds under acidic or basic conditions. Here, both the carbonyl compounds function as nucleophiles and electrophiles. As shown in Figure 1, such a reaction yields a mixture of products, two of which are formed via self-condensation, while the remaining two are formed via crossed-condensation. Without adjustment, the reaction's usefulness in organic chemistry is decreased.
5.4K
Classification of Titrimetric Analysis Based on Reaction Types01:01

Classification of Titrimetric Analysis Based on Reaction Types

2.0K
Titrimetric analysis in solution chemistry involves measuring the volume of solutions and is often called volumetric analysis. The standard solution of known concentration in the burette is called the titrant, whereas the solution of unknown concentration in the flask is called the analyte, or titrand. Titrimetric analyses can be classified into four types based on the reactions between the titrant and analyte.
Titrations between an acid and a base lead to neutralization reactions that form...
2.0K
Reaction Mechanisms: Rate-limiting Step Approximation01:29

Reaction Mechanisms: Rate-limiting Step Approximation

100
The rate-determining step, or RDS, in a chemical reaction is the slowest step that determines the overall reaction rate. It is identified by using the observed rate law and typically involves approximation methods like the RDS approximation or the steady-state approximation.In the RDS approximation, also known as the rate-limiting-step or equilibrium approximation, the reaction mechanism consists of one or more reversible reactions near equilibrium, followed by a slower RDS, and then one or...
100

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Autoparty: Machine Learning-Guided Visual Inspection of Molecular Docking Results.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2025
Same author

MIC: A deep learning tool for assigning ions and waters in cryo-EM and crystal structures.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

An improved model for prediction of de novo designed proteins with diverse geometries.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2025
Same author

Evolutionary-scale enzymology enables exploration of a rugged catalytic landscape.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2025
Same author

ChromaFactor: Deconvolution of single-molecule chromatin organization with non-negative matrix factorization.

PLoS computational biology·2025
Same author

Fuzz Testing Molecular Representation Using Deep Variational Anomaly Generation.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2025
Same journal

A native sulfur deposit in Gale crater, Mars.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Coordinated demise of harmful algal blooms.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Genetic effects put into context.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Bacteria share proteins to survive antibiotics.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Impacts shaped Earth's first continents.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same journal

Erratum for the Report "Covalently bonded single-molecule junctions with stable and reversible photoswitched conductivity" by C. Jia <i>et al</i>.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 2, 2026

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
04:09

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Published on: October 10, 2018

8.0K

Comment on "Predicting reaction performance in C-N cross-coupling using machine learning".

Kangway V Chuang1, Michael J Keiser2

  • 1Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases, and Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.

Science (New York, N.Y.)
|November 17, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Machine learning models for predicting C-N cross-coupling reaction yields were evaluated. The study found the experimental design insufficient to validate the models, failing classical machine learning controls.

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
06:50

Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions

Published on: January 26, 2024

2.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 2, 2026

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
04:09

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Published on: October 10, 2018

8.0K
Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
06:50

Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions

Published on: January 26, 2024

2.8K

Area of Science:

  • Chemistry
  • Machine Learning
  • Data Science

Background:

  • Predicting chemical reaction outcomes is crucial for synthetic chemistry.
  • Machine learning (ML) offers potential for predicting reaction yields.
  • Accurate model validation is essential for reliable ML applications in chemistry.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of ML models in predicting C-N cross-coupling reaction yields.
  • To assess the validity of ML models using chemical descriptors versus random features.

Main Methods:

  • Application of ML models using atomic, electronic, and vibrational descriptors as input features.
  • Retrospective and prospective testing scenarios were employed.
  • Comparison of model performance trained on chemical features versus random-valued features.

Main Results:

  • The experimental design could not adequately distinguish between models trained on chemical features and those trained on random features.
  • The ML models failed to pass classical controls for validation.
  • The predictive power of the chemical descriptors was not definitively established.

Conclusions:

  • The current experimental design is inadequate for validating ML models for reaction yield prediction.
  • Further refinement in experimental design is necessary to reliably assess ML model performance in chemistry.
  • The study highlights the importance of rigorous validation in applying ML to chemical research.