Caution when using network partners for target identification in drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying novel, high-yield drug targets is challenging and often results in a high failure rate. However, recent data indicate 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 US Food and Drug Administration-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 physically interacting proteins of genes identified by exome-wide association studies (ExWASs), genome-wide association studies (GWASs) combined with a locus-to-gene mapping algorithm called the Effector Index, and Genetic Priority Score (GPS), which integrated eight genetic features with drug indications from the Open Targets and SIDER databases. We assessed how accurately including interacting genes with the ExWAS-, Effector Index-, and GPS-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. Expanding genetically identified targets to include network partners using IntAct did not increase the likelihood of identifying drug targets across the 412 tested traits, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".