Cited by 89Fungal and yeast genetics researchComputational Drug Discovery MethodsPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism

Off-Target Effects of Psychoactive Drugs Revealed by Genome-Wide Assays in Yeast

Open access
Ericson, Elke, Gebbia, Marinella, Heisler, Lawrence E., Wildenhain, Jan, Tyers, Mike, Giaever, Guri, Nislow, Corey·2008·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

To better understand off-target effects of widely prescribed psychoactive drugs, we performed a comprehensive series of chemogenomic screens using the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model system. Because the known human targets of these drugs do not exist in yeast, we could employ the yeast gene deletion collections and parallel fitness profiling to explore potential off-target effects in a genome-wide manner. Among 214 tested, documented psychoactive drugs, we identified 81 compounds that inhibited wild-type yeast growth and were thus selected for genome-wide fitness profiling. Many of these drugs had a propensity to affect multiple cellular functions. The sensitivity profiles of half of the analyzed drugs were enriched for core cellular processes such as secretion, protein folding, RNA processing, and chromatin structure. Interestingly, fluoxetine (Prozac) interfered with establishment of cell polarity, cyproheptadine (Periactin) targeted essential genes with chromatin-remodeling roles, while paroxetine (Paxil) interfered with essential RNA metabolism genes, suggesting potential secondary drug targets. We also found that the more recently developed atypical antipsychotic clozapine (Clozaril) had no fewer off-target effects in yeast than the typical antipsychotics haloperidol (Haldol) and pimozide (Orap). Our results suggest that model organism pharmacogenetic studies provide a rational foundation for understanding the off-target effects of clinically important psychoactive agents and suggest a rational means both for devising compound derivatives with fewer side effects and for tailoring drug treatment to individual patient genotypes.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000151

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • In S. cerevisiae, the most notable effect of fluoxetine was on establishment of polarity, that of paroxetine was RNA processing, and that of sertraline was vesicle-mediated transport.

    “With the same approach, Ericson et al., showed that in S. cerevisiae, the most notable effect of fluoxetine was on the establishment of polarity, that of paroxetine was RNA processing, and that of sertraline was vesicle-mediated transport [107].”

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
Ericson, E., Gebbia, M., Heisler, L. E., Wildenhain, J., Tyers, M., Giaever, G., & Nislow, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Nislow, Corey
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2008-08-08
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
e1000151
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2168192378
Cited by
89
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (84305_1, 81340, (MO)P-81340, 84305)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Keywords
off-target effects, psychoactive substances, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, drug sensitivity, fluoxetine, cyproheptadine, paroxetine, clozapine, haloperidol, pimozide, chromatin remodeling, RNA metabolism, cell polarity, pharmacogenetics, adverse drug reactions
MeSH terms
Drug Resistance, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Psychotropic Drugs, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Protein Biosynthesis, Telomere, Genome, Fungal, Cell Polarity, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Protein Transport, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Lipid Metabolism

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