Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20668676›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Network-based relating pharmacological and genomic spaces for drug target identification.

Shiwen Zhao, Shao Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shiwen ZhaoMOE Key Laboratory of Bioinformatics and Bioinformatics Division, TNLIST/Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Shao Li

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying drug targets is a critical step in pharmacology. Drug phenotypic and chemical indexes are two important indicators in this field. However, in previous studies, the indexes were always isolated and the candidate proteins were often limited to a small subset of the human genome. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsBased on the correlations observed in pharmacological and genomic spaces, we develop a computational framework, drugCIPHER, to infer drug-target interactions in a genome-wide scale. Three linear regression models are proposed, which respectively relate drug therapeutic similarity, chemical similarity and their combination to the relevance of the targets on the basis of a protein-protein interaction network. Typically, the model integrating both drug therapeutic similarity and chemical similarity, drugCIPHER-MS, achieved an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.988 in the training set and 0.935 in the test set. Based on drugCIPHER-MS, a genome-wide map of drug biological fingerprints for 726 drugs is constructed, within which unexpected drug-drug relations emerged in 501 cases, implying possible novel applications or side effects. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings demonstrate that the integration of phenotypic and chemical indexes in pharmacological space and protein-protein interactions in genomic space can not only speed the genome-wide identification of drug targets but also find new applications for the existing drugs.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDrug DiscoveryGenome, HumanHumansLinear ModelsProtein BindingProtein Interaction Mapping

Identifiers

PMID20668676
PMCPMC2909904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.