The analysis of the drug–targets based on the topological properties in the human protein–protein interaction network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing topological properties of drug-target proteins in the biology network is very helpful in understanding the mechanism of drug action. However, comprehensive studies to elaborately characterize the biological network features of drug-target proteins are still lacking. In this paper, we compared the topological properties of drug-targets with those of the non-drug-target sets, by mapping the drug-targets in DrugBank to the human protein interaction network. The results indicate that the topological properties of drug-targets are significantly distinguishable from those of non-drug-targets. Moreover, the potential possibility of drug-target prediction based on these properties is discussed. All proteins in the interaction network were ranked by their topological properties. Among the top 200 proteins, 94 overlapped with drug-targets in DrugBank and some novel predictions were found to be drug-targets in public literatures and other databases. In conclusion, our method explores the topological properties of drug-targets in the human protein interaction network by exploiting the large-scale drug-targets and protein interaction data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it