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":"10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identifying novel, high-yield drug targets is challenging and often results in a high failure rate. However, recent data indicate 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 US Food and Drug Administration-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 physically interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWASs), genome-wide association studies (GWASs) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index, and Genetic Priority Score (GPS), which integrated eight genetic features with drug indications from the Open Targets and SIDER databases. We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS-, Effector Index-, and GPS-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. Expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners using IntAct did not increase the likelihood of identifying drug targets across the 412 tested traits, suggesting that such results should be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":34530,"journal":{"name":"HGG Advances","volume":" ","pages":"100409"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HGG Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","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 indicate 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 US Food and Drug Administration-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 physically interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWASs), genome-wide association studies (GWASs) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index, and Genetic Priority Score (GPS), which integrated eight genetic features with drug indications from the Open Targets and SIDER databases. We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS-, Effector Index-, and GPS-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. Expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners using IntAct did not increase the likelihood of identifying drug targets across the 412 tested traits, suggesting that such results should be interpreted with caution.