4.3 Article

Predicting the Drug Safety for Traditional Chinese Medicine through a Comparative Analysis of Withdrawn Drugs Using Pharmacological Network

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2013/256782

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81230090, 81102375, 21173076, 81222046]
  2. Twelfth Five-Year National Science & Technology Support Program [2012BAI29B06]
  3. Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology [11DZ2260600, 12401900801]
  4. 863 Hi-Tech Program of China [2012AA020308]
  5. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-10-0378]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the major issue to limit the use of drugs, drug safety leads to the attrition or failure in clinical trials of drugs. Therefore, it would be more efficient to minimize therapeutic risks if it could be predicted before large-scale clinical trials. Here, we integrated a network topology analysis with cheminformatics measurements on drug information from the DrugBank database to detect the discrepancies between approved drugs and withdrawn drugs and give drug safety indications. Thus, 47 approved drugs were unfolded with higher similarity measurements to withdrawn ones by the same target and confirmed to be already withdrawn or discontinued in certain countries or regions in subsequent investigations. Accordingly, with the 2D chemical fingerprint similarity calculation as a medium, the method was applied to predict pharmacovigilance for natural products from an in-house traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) database. Among them, Silibinin was highlighted for the high similarity to the withdrawn drug Plicamycin although it was regarded as a promising drug candidate with a lower toxicity in existing reports. In summary, the network approach integrated with cheminformatics could provide drug safety indications effectively, especially for compounds with unknown targets or mechanisms like natural products. It would be helpful for drug safety surveillance in all phases of drug development.

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

4.3
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