4.6 Article

Text mining-based in silico drug discovery in oral mucositis caused by high-dose cancer therapy

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 2695-2705

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4096-2

关键词

Oral mucositis; Text mining; Wound healing; High-dose cancer therapy

资金

  1. Carolinas HealthCare System Research fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Oral mucositis (OM) is a major dose-limiting side effect of chemotherapy and radiation used in cancer treatment. Due to the complex nature of OM, currently available drug-based treatments are of limited efficacy. Objectives Our objectives were (i) to determine genes and molecular pathways associated with OM and wound healing using computational tools and publicly available data and (ii) to identify drugs formulated for topical use targeting the relevant OM molecular pathways. Methods OM and wound healing-associated genes were determined by text mining, and the intersection of the two gene sets was selected for gene ontology analysis using the GeneCodis program. Protein interaction network analysis was performed using STRING-db. Enriched gene sets belonging to the identified pathways were queried against the Drug-Gene Interaction database to find drug candidates for topical use in OM. Results Our analysis identified 447 genes common to both the OM and wound healing text mining concepts. Gene enrichment analysis yielded 20 genes representing six pathways and targetable by a total of 32 drugs which could possibly be formulated for topical application. A manual search on ClinicalTrials.gov confirmed no relevant pathway/drug candidate had been overlooked. Twenty-five of the 32 drugs can directly affect the PTGS2 (COX-2) pathway, the pathway that has been targeted in previous clinical trials with limited success. Conclusions Drug discovery using in silico text mining and pathway analysis tools can facilitate the identification of existing drugs that have the potential of topical administration to improve OM treatment.

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

4.6
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