ChemSpider Blog

Identifiers, synonyms, registry numbers and so on are the primary textual manner by which chemical structures are searched on ChemSpider. There are various “flavors” of these. if you take a look at the record for Xanax you will see just a FEW of the names have links to Wikipedia, are EINECS numbers, Registry Numbers, International Names, Japanese Names, are Latin names, French Names etc.

Alprazolam [Wiki]

Xanax [Wiki]

249-349-2 [EINECS]

28981-97-7 [RN]

4H-(1,2,4?)Triazolo?(4,3-a)(1?,4)benzod?iazepine,? 8-chloro?-1-methyl?-6-phenyl-

4H-[1,2,4?]Triazolo?[4,3-a][1?,4]benzod?iazepine,? 8-chloro?-1-methyl?-6-phenyl-

Alplax

Alprazola?m (JP15/U?SP)

Alprazola?m [USAN:B?AN:INN:JA?N]

Alprazola?mum [INN-?Latin]

Since there are so many levels of complexity associated with identifiers we have added new tools to allow our curators to label the names with appropriate labels. the “present” list is shown below. The language tab lists a whole series of languages. One more effort to expand our curation…

I refer you back to the original post from which this comment was made as it is taken from a specific context.

“There is no “right structure (sic)” for a compound. There are structures which have a very high probability of being associated with a name. There are names which have a probability of representing a chemical entity.”

Is this a true statement? In many case I would agree but I have my own opinion in specific cases and let’s focus on the drug industry for a moment and trade names. First, let’s talk about me..and my identifiers. Depending who’s talking about me I am Tony, Antony, Dr Williams, Mr Williams, Dad, sweetheart, son, Tone, AJ, Bro’ and so on. However I am registered with a social security number and exist as a legal entity, a “registered” entity.

Now, Zantac is a registered trade name for the chemical here. I am not an expert in the registration process but I believe that somewhere along the line a defined chemical entity is associated with that name. Whether the chemical entity has been appropriately elucidated by analytical technologies or not is a different question. What is registered as a compound, and associated with the name, is what that name defines.

Now, there are a whole series of other names for the same compound - registry numbers, systematic names, organization numbers. See below:

Ranitidine [Wiki]

(Z)-N-{2-?[({5-[(Di?methylami?no)methyl?]furan-2-?yl}methyl?)sulfanyl?]ethyl}-N?’-methyl-?2-nitroet?hen-1,1-d?iamin

(Z)-N-{2-?[({5-[(Di?methylami?no)methyl?]furan-2-?yl}methyl?)sulfanyl?]ethyl}-N?’-methyl-?2-nitroet?hene-1,1-?diamine

1,1-Ethen?ediamine,? N-[2-[[[?5-[(dimet?hylamino)?methyl]-2?-furanyl]?methyl]th?io]ethyl]?-N’-methy?l-2-nitro?-, (Z)-

128345-62?-0 [RN]

266-332-5 [EINECS]

66357-59-3 [RN]

Azantac

GR 122311X

More…

Melfax

N-[2-[[[-?5-[(Dimet?hylamino)?methyl]-2?-furanyl]?methyl]th?io]ethyl]?-N’-methy?l-2-nitro?-1,1-ethe?nediamine

Noctone

Raniben

Ranidil

Raniplex

Ranitidin?e Base

Sostril

Taural

Terposen

Trigger

Ulcex

Ultidine

ZANTAC [Wiki]

Zantic

I think that the Trade Name for a compound is definitive since its registered. Relative to the statement “There are structures which have a very high probability of being associated with a name. There are names which have a probability of representing a chemical entity.”…my question is whether a Registered Trade Name is absolute? I’m asking the question since I’m actually not sure. Thoughts anyone?