Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying novel, high-yield drug targets is challenging and often results in a high failure rate. However, recent data indicates that leveraging human genetic evidence to identify and validate these targets significantly increases the likelihood of success in drug development. Two recent papers from Open Targets claimed that around half of FDA-approved drugs had targets with direct human genetic evidence. By expanding target identification to include protein network partners—molecules in physical contact—the proportion of drug targets with genetic evidence support increased to two-thirds. However, the efficacy of using these network partners for target identification was not formally tested. To address this, we tested the approach on a list of robust positive control genes. We used the IntAct database to find molecular interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWAS) and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index (Ei). We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS and Effector Index selected genes identified positive controls, focusing on precision, sensitivity, and specificity. Our results indicated that although molecular interactions led to higher sensitivity in identifying positive control genes, their practical application is limited by low precision. Hence, expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners did not increase the chance of identifying drug targets, suggesting that such results should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.120 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".