Drug Repositioning for Diabetes Based on 'Omics' Data Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug repositioning has shorter developmental time, lower cost and less safety risk than traditional drug development process. The current study aims to repurpose marketed drugs and clinical candidates for new indications in diabetes treatment by mining clinical 'omics' data. We analyzed data from genome wide association studies (GWAS), proteomics and metabolomics studies and revealed a total of 992 proteins as potential anti-diabetic targets in human. Information on the drugs that target these 992 proteins was retrieved from the Therapeutic Target Database (TTD) and 108 of these proteins are drug targets with drug projects information. Research and preclinical drug targets were excluded and 35 of the 108 proteins were selected as druggable proteins. Among them, five proteins were known targets for treating diabetes. Based on the pathogenesis knowledge gathered from the OMIM and PubMed databases, 12 protein targets of 58 drugs were found to have a new indication for treating diabetes. CMap (connectivity map) was used to compare the gene expression patterns of cells treated by these 58 drugs and that of cells treated by known anti-diabetic drugs or diabetes risk causing compounds. As a result, 9 drugs were found to have the potential to treat diabetes. Among the 9 drugs, 4 drugs (diflunisal, nabumetone, niflumic acid and valdecoxib) targeting COX2 (prostaglandin G/H synthase 2) were repurposed for treating type 1 diabetes, and 2 drugs (phenoxybenzamine and idazoxan) targeting ADRA2A (Alpha-2A adrenergic receptor) had a new indication for treating type 2 diabetes. These findings indicated that 'omics' data mining based drug repositioning is a potentially powerful tool to discover novel anti-diabetic indications from marketed drugs and clinical candidates. Furthermore, the results of our study could be related to other disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".