Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34715787›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021

Centrality of drug targets in protein networks.

Ariele Viacava Follis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Network analysis of antimicrobial resistance inNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

1 author.

Ariele Viacava FollisEMD Serono Research and Development Inc., 45A Middlesex Turnpike, Billerica, MA, 01821, USA. ariele.viacava-follis@emdserono.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the pharmaceutical industry, competing for few validated drug targets there is a drive to identify new ways of therapeutic intervention. Here, we attempted to define guidelines to evaluate a target's 'fitness' based on its node characteristics within annotated protein functional networks to complement contingent therapeutic hypotheses.

resultsWe observed that targets of approved, selective small molecule drugs exhibit high node centrality within protein networks relative to a broader set of investigational targets spanning various development stages. Targets of approved drugs also exhibit higher centrality than other proteins within their respective functional class. These findings expand on previous reports of drug targets' network centrality by suggesting some centrality metrics such as low topological coefficient as inherent characteristics of a 'good' target, relative to other exploratory targets and regardless of its functional class. These centrality metrics could thus be indicators of an individual protein's 'fitness' as potential drug target. Correlations between protein nodes' network centrality and number of associated publications underscored the possibility of knowledge bias as an inherent limitation to such predictions.

conclusionsDespite some entanglement with knowledge bias, like structure-oriented 'druggability' assessments of new protein targets, centrality metrics could assist early pharmaceutical discovery teams in evaluating potential targets with limited experimental proof of concept and help allocate resources for an effective drug discovery pipeline.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsProteinsDrug DiscoveryPharmaceutical PreparationsProteinsDrug targetGraph analysisProtein network

Identifiers

PMID34715787
PMCPMC8555226

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.