Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
Published
2025-01-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100409
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.51

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery

Kevin Y. H. Liang, J. Brent Richards, Dandan Tan, Guillaume Butler‐Laporte et al.
3 citations
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
4.51
article

Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery

Kevin Y. H. Liang, J. Brent Richards, Dandan Tan, Guillaume Butler‐Laporte, Yann Ilboudo, Yiheng Chen
article en
3 citations

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.

Human Genetics and Genomics AdvancesVol. 6(2)
Jewish General Hospital (CA), McGill University (CA)
McGill University, Wellcome Trust, Public Health Agency of Canada, Compute Canada, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, European Commission, Public Health Agency, Jewish General Hospital, Fondation de l'Hôpital général juif, National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé, Medical Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
4.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.