ArticlePloS one2021
An integrative network-based approach for drug target indication expansion.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Network pharmacology approach to unravel the neuroprotective potential of natural products: a narrative review.Molecular diversity · 2026Review
- Analysis of stress response in multiple bacterial pathogens using a network biology approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multi-layered genetic approaches to identify approved drug targets.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- Combined Multiomics and In Silico Approach Uncovers PRKAR1A as a Putative Therapeutic Target in Multi-Organ Dysfunction Syndrome.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Applying Next-Generation Sequencing and Multi-Omics in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Mapping protein-protein interactions by mass spectrometry.Mass spectrometry reviewsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe identification of a target-indication pair is regarded as the first step in a traditional drug discovery and development process. Significant investment and attrition occur during discovery and development before a molecule is shown to be safe and efficacious for the selected indication and becomes an approved drug. Many drug targets are functionally pleiotropic and might be good targets for multiple indications. Methodologies that leverage years of scientific contributions on drug targets to allow systematic evaluation of other indication opportunities are critical for both patients and drug discovery and development scientists.
methodsWe introduced a network-based approach to systematically screen and prioritize disease indications for drug targets. The approach fundamentally integrates disease genomics data and protein interaction network. Further, the methodology allows for indication identification by leveraging state-of-art network algorithms to generate and compare the target and disease subnetworks.
resultsWe first evaluated the performance of our method on recovering FDA approved indications for 15 randomly selected drug targets. The results showed superior performance when compared with other state-of-art approaches. Using this approach, we predicted novel indications supported by literature evidence for several highly pursued drug targets such as IL12/IL23 combination.
conclusionsOur results demonstrated a potential global approach for indication expansion strategies. The proposed methodology enables rapid and systematic evaluation of both individual and combined drug targets for novel indications. Additionally, this approach provides novel insights on expanding the role of genes and pathways for developing therapeutic intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.