4.5 Article

Neurological Disorder Drug Discovery from Gene Expression with Tensor Decomposition

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN
卷 25, 期 43, 页码 4589-4599

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1381612825666191210160906

关键词

Amyloid; alzheimer disease; gene expression; single-cell analysis; drug discovery; cell line

资金

  1. KAKENHI [19H05270, 17K00417]
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arab [KEP-8-611-38]
  3. DSR
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K00417, 19H05270] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Identifying effective candidate drug compounds in patients with neurological disorders based on gene expression data is of great importance to the neurology field. By identifying effective candidate drugs to a given neurological disorder, neurologists would (1) reduce the time searching for effective treatments; and (2) gain additional useful information that leads to a better treatment outcome. Although there are many strategies to screen drug candidate in pre-clinical stage, it is not easy to check if candidate drug compounds can also be effective to human. Objective: We tried to propose a strategy to screen genes whose expression is altered in model animal experiments to be compared with gene expressed differentially with drug treatment to human cell lines. Methods: Recently proposed tensor decomposition (TD) based unsupervised feature extraction (FE) is applied to single cell (sc) RNA-seq experiments of Alzheimer's disease model animal mouse brain. Results: Four hundreds and one genes are screened as those differentially expressed during A beta accumulation as age progresses. These genes are significantly overlapped with those expressed differentially with the known drug treatments for three independent data sets: LINCS, DrugMatrix, and GEO. Conclusion: Our strategy, application of TD based unsupervised FE, is useful one to screen drug candidate compounds using scRNA-seq data set.

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

4.5
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