Cited by 643Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksComputational Drug Discovery MethodsBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Network-based in silico drug efficacy screening

Open access
Guney, Emre, Menche, Jörg, Vidal, Marc, Barábasi, Albert-László·2016·Nature Communications

Abstract

The increasing cost of drug development together with a significant drop in the number of new drug approvals raises the need for innovative approaches for target identification and efficacy prediction. Here, we take advantage of our increasing understanding of the network-based origins of diseases to introduce a drug-disease proximity measure that quantifies the interplay between drugs targets and diseases. By correcting for the known biases of the interactome, proximity helps us uncover the therapeutic effect of drugs, as well as to distinguish palliative from effective treatments. Our analysis of 238 drugs used in 78 diseases indicates that the therapeutic effect of drugs is localized in a small network neighborhood of the disease genes and highlights efficacy issues for drugs used in Parkinson and several inflammatory disorders. Finally, network-based proximity allows us to predict novel drug-disease associations that offer unprecedented opportunities for drug repurposing and the detection of adverse effects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms10331

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The standard benchmarking strategy used to evaluate drug-repurposing AI models aligns with the approach predominantly used in the literature.

    “This evaluation method aligns with the approach predominantly used in the literature12,14–16,18–20.”

    From A foundation model for clinician-centered drug repurposing (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Because gene expression data can be noisy and variable, recent work fuses co-expression matrices with existing biomedical networks such as GO annotations and PPI, then feeds the resulting graph into graph convolution layers.

    “Because gene expression data can be noisy and variational, recent advances include fusing the co-expression matrices with existing biomedical networks, such as GO annotations and PPI, and feeding the resulting graph into graph convolution layers (Section 2.2) [150, 151, 152].”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [151]

  • This fusion has enabled more interpretable disease classification models, for example by weighting gene interactions using existing biological knowledge.

    “Doing so has enabled more interpretable disease classification models (e.g., weighting gene interactions based on existing biological knowledge).”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [151]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guney, E., Menche, J., Vidal, M., & Barábasi, A.-L.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2016-02-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
10331-10331
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2263739890
Cited by
625
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 10
FWCI
24.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Research (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL108630)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (50-HG004233, P50HG004233)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
drug efficacy prediction, protein-protein interaction network, drug-target network, adverse drug reactions, Parkinson's disease, inflammatory diseases, disease-associated genes
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Models, Biological, Structure-Activity Relationship, Molecular Structure, Neural Networks, Computer, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review