ArticleResearch square2024
Shared etiology of Mendelian and complex disease supports drug discovery.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Drugs targeting disease causal genes are more likely to succeed for that disease. However, complex disease causal genes are not always clear. In contrast, Mendelian disease causal genes are well-known and druggable. Here, we seek an approach to exploit the well characterized biology of Mendelian diseases for complex disease drug discovery, by exploiting evidence of pathogenic processes shared between monogenic and complex disease. One way to find shared disease etiology is clinical association: some Mendelian diseases are known to predispose patients to specific complex diseases (comorbidity). Previous studies link this comorbidity to pleiotropic effects of the Mendelian disease causal genes on the complex disease. Methods: In previous work studying incidence of 90 Mendelian and 65 complex diseases, we found 2,908 pairs of clinically associated (comorbid) diseases. Using this clinical signal, we can match each complex disease to a set of Mendelian disease causal genes. We hypothesize that the drugs targeting these genes are potential candidate drugs for the complex disease. We evaluate our candidate drugs using information of current drug indications or investigations. Results: Our analysis shows that the candidate drugs are enriched among currently investigated or indicated drugs for the relevant complex diseases (odds ratio = 1.84, p = 5.98e-22). Additionally, the candidate drugs are more likely to be in advanced stages of the drug development pipeline. We also present an approach to prioritize Mendelian diseases with particular promise for drug repurposing. Finally, we find that the combination of comorbidity and genetic similarity for a Mendelian disease and cancer pair leads to recommendation of candidate drugs that are enriched for those investigated or indicated. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a novel way to take advantage of the rich knowledge about Mendelian disease biology to improve treatment of complex diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.