4.7 Article

Large-scale exploration and analysis of drug combinations

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 31, 期 12, 页码 2007-2016

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv080

关键词

-

资金

  1. Northwest AF University
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11201049, 31170796]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University of Ministry of Education of China
  4. Interdisciplinary Research Matching Scheme (IRMS) of Hong Kong Baptist University [RC-IRMS/12-13/02]
  5. Hong Kong Baptist University Strategic Development Fund [SDF13-1209-P01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Drug combinations are a promising strategy for combating complex diseases by improving the efficacy and reducing corresponding side effects. Currently, a widely studied problem in pharmacology is to predict effective drug combinations, either through empirically screening in clinic or pure experimental trials. However, the large-scale prediction of drug combination by a systems method is rarely considered. Results: We report a systems pharmacology framework to predict drug combinations (PreDCs) on a computational model, termed probability ensemble approach (PEA), for analysis of both the efficacy and adverse effects of drug combinations. First, a Bayesian network integrating with a similarity algorithm is developed to model the combinations from drug molecular and pharmacological phenotypes, and the predictions are then assessed with both clinical efficacy and adverse effects. It is illustrated that PEA can predict the combination efficacy of drugs spanning different therapeutic classes with high specificity and sensitivity (AUC = 0.90), which was further validated by independent data or new experimental assays. PEA also evaluates the adverse effects (AUC = 0.95) quantitatively and detects the therapeutic indications for drug combinations. Finally, the PreDC database includes 1571 known and 3269 predicted optimal combinations as well as their potential side effects and therapeutic indications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据