Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery

Dandan Tan, Yiheng Chen, Yann Ilboudo, Kevin Y.H. Liang, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, J Brent Richards
{"title":"Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery","authors":"Dandan Tan, Yiheng Chen, Yann Ilboudo, Kevin Y.H. Liang, Guillaume Butler-Laporte, J Brent Richards","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.08.607024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Identifying novel, high-yield drug targets is challenging and often results in a high failure rate. However, recent data indicates that leveraging human genetic evidence to identify and validate these targets significantly increases the likelihood of success in drug development. Two recent papers from Open Targets claimed that around half of FDA-approved drugs had targets with direct human genetic evidence. By expanding target identification to include protein network partners—molecules in physical contact—the proportion of drug targets with genetic evidence support increased to two-thirds. However, the efficacy of using these network partners for target identification was not formally tested. To address this, we tested the approach on a list of robust positive control genes. We used the IntAct database to find molecular interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWAS) and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index (Ei). We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS and Effector Index selected genes identified positive controls, focusing on precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Our results indicated that although molecular interactions led to higher sensitivity in identifying positive control genes, their practical application is limited by low precision. Hence, expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners did not increase the chance of identifying drug targets, suggesting that such results should be interpreted with caution.","PeriodicalId":501518,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Pharmacology and Toxicology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Pharmacology and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.08.607024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Identifying novel, high-yield drug targets is challenging and often results in a high failure rate. However, recent data indicates that leveraging human genetic evidence to identify and validate these targets significantly increases the likelihood of success in drug development. Two recent papers from Open Targets claimed that around half of FDA-approved drugs had targets with direct human genetic evidence. By expanding target identification to include protein network partners—molecules in physical contact—the proportion of drug targets with genetic evidence support increased to two-thirds. However, the efficacy of using these network partners for target identification was not formally tested. To address this, we tested the approach on a list of robust positive control genes. We used the IntAct database to find molecular interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWAS) and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index (Ei). We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS and Effector Index selected genes identified positive controls, focusing on precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Our results indicated that although molecular interactions led to higher sensitivity in identifying positive control genes, their practical application is limited by low precision. Hence, expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners did not increase the chance of identifying drug targets, suggesting that such results should be interpreted with caution.
在药物发现中使用网络伙伴进行靶点识别时要谨慎
确定新颖、高产的药物靶点是一项具有挑战性的工作,通常会导致很高的失败率。然而,最近的数据表明,利用人类基因证据来识别和验证这些靶点,可以大大增加药物开发成功的可能性。Open Targets 最近发表的两篇论文称,在美国食品及药物管理局批准的药物中,约有一半的靶点有直接的人类基因证据。通过将靶点识别范围扩大到蛋白质网络伙伴--物理接触中的分子--有遗传证据支持的药物靶点比例增加到三分之二。然而,使用这些网络伙伴进行靶点识别的有效性并未经过正式测试。为了解决这个问题,我们在一个稳健的阳性对照基因列表上测试了这种方法。我们利用 IntAct 数据库,结合称为效应指数(Ei)的基因座到基因映射算法,寻找通过全外显子组关联研究(ExWAS)和全基因组关联研究(GWAS)确定的基因的分子交互蛋白。我们评估了将相互作用基因纳入 ExWAS 和效应指数所选基因鉴定阳性对照的准确性,重点关注精确度、灵敏度和特异性。我们的结果表明,虽然分子相互作用能提高鉴定阳性对照基因的灵敏度,但其实际应用却因精确度低而受到限制。因此,将基因鉴定的靶点扩展到网络伙伴并不能增加鉴定药物靶点的机会,这表明应谨慎解释此类结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信