Molecular structure from independently sourced SMILES

Gefitinib 2D structure

Role
Drug
Mechanism class
EGFR TKI
Aliases
iressa
InChIKey
XGALLCVXEZPNRQ-UHFFFAOYSA-N
Structure checked
2026-10-08
Molecular formula
C22H24ClFN4O3
Structure source
PubChem
PubChem CID
123631
InChI Key
XGALLCVXEZPNRQ-UHFFFAOYSA-N

Read the two structures

Locate ring nitrogens in gefitinib and erlotinib, then compare the substituents outside the rings. Check halogen labels and side-chain differences using both formula and drawing. A shared local motif does not establish identity of the whole molecule.

Carbon triple bond C≡CFluorine atomsChlorine atoms
Differences measured by the selected structure queries
ObservationGefitinibErlotinib
Carbon triple bond C≡C01
Fluorine atoms10
Chlorine atoms10

Connect the structural observations with the fingerprint result

Gefitinib has one highlighted fluorine and one chlorine. Erlotinib has neither of these query matches and instead has one carbon triple-bond C≡C match. Read the coloured regions with the counts to distinguish the selected substituents concretely. [Gefitinib] · [Erlotinib]

There are 31 shared set bits across a union of 76, giving 0.408. The selected substituents differ while other encoded environments overlap. This is a whole-structure fingerprint calculation, not a score comparing only halogens and the triple bond.

Visual resemblance is a useful observation, but this calculation neither computes a maximum common substructure nor establishes an identical scaffold. Fingerprint overlap and a shared-scaffold claim require different evidence.

Calculated structural similarity: 0.408 · Morgan radius 2 / 2048 bits · Tanimoto

Calculation: 31 / (60 + 47 − 31) = 31 / 76 ≈ 0.408. Set-bit counts are not counts of unique atoms or functional groups.

Query definitions and reproducibility
  • Carbon triple bond C≡C: C#C
  • Fluorine atoms: [F]
  • Chlorine atoms: [Cl]

RDKit 2025.03.4 · Matches with identical atom sets are counted once. Colours mark atoms and bonds matching selected queries, not a proven shared scaffold or synthesis route.

  1. Read elemental composition from the formulas.
  2. Trace ring and substituent connections in each drawing.
  3. Compare your observations with the fingerprint score calculated under identical settings.
  4. Check stereochemistry and the complete InChIKey in the source records.

The score is fingerprint overlap, not a percentage of efficacy or safety. RDKit

Structure-source check: 2026-10-08 / 2026-10-08 · Editorial update and calculation check: 2026-10-16

Download source structures, queries and bit counts for this comparison (JSON)

StructureMoa editorial · source review 2026-10-08

Molecular identity

Gefitinib: independently retrieved PubChem CID 123631, formula C22H24ClFN4O3.

How to compare

Locate ring nitrogens in gefitinib and erlotinib, then compare the substituents outside the rings. Check halogen labels and side-chain differences using both formula and drawing. A shared local motif does not establish identity of the whole molecule.

Interpretation limits

The Morgan/Tanimoto score measures fingerprint overlap. It does not establish efficacy, safety, clinical superiority or full stereochemical identity.

SMILES

COC1=C(C=C2C(=C1)N=CN=C2NC3=CC(=C(C=C3)F)Cl)OCCCN4CCOCC4

Tags

EGFR1st-gen

Related compounds

Comparisons · briefs

External IDs · BioMoa

StructureMoa is a chemical-structure exploration tool. Structural similarity, clustering, and SAR relationships are intended for research exploration and do not establish shared potency, selectivity, safety, efficacy, or clinical performance.

Editorial responsibility and corrections

Operated and edited by the independent StructureMoa project. Explanations use AI assistance; structural identity and similarity are checked against source records and calculation tests. Molecular data and clinical or regulatory evidence have separate review scopes.

Source structures
PubChem · CID / SMILES / InChIKey
Calculations and automated checks
RDKit · Morgan / SMARTS
Disclosed specialist review
No separate external specialist review is disclosed. Passing automated tests is not specialist review of clinical claims.

For a correction, include the page URL, molecule name or CID, the field in question and a supporting source. Corrections are checked against sources, and the affected editorial update date is changed when a correction is published. [email protected]