4.7 Article

Targets of drugs are generally, and targets of drugs having side effects are specifically good spreaders of human interactome perturbations

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep10182

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [OTKA K83314]
  2. Janos Bolyai Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  3. Institute of Food Research
  4. BBSRC
  5. BBSRC [BBS/E/T/000PR5885, BBS/E/F/00044500, BBS/E/T/000PR6193] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/T/000PR6193, BBS/E/F/00044500, BBS/E/T/000PR5885] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Network-based methods are playing an increasingly important role in drug design. Our main question in this paper was whether the efficiency of drug target proteins to spread perturbations in the human interactome is larger if the binding drugs have side effects, as compared to those which have no reported side effects. Our results showed that in general, drug targets were better spreaders of perturbations than non-target proteins, and in particular, targets of drugs with side effects were also better spreaders of perturbations than targets of drugs having no reported side effects in human protein-protein interaction networks. Colorectal cancer-related proteins were good spreaders and had a high centrality, while type 2 diabetes-related proteins showed an average spreading efficiency and had an average centrality in the human interactome. Moreover, the interactome-distance between drug targets and disease-related proteins was higher in diabetes than in colorectal cancer. Our results may help a better understanding of the network position and dynamics of drug targets and diseaserelated proteins, and may contribute to develop additional, network-based tests to increase the potential safety of drug candidates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available