ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Prioritizing drug targets by perturbing biological network response functions.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- NetworkCommons: bridging data, knowledge, and methods to build and evaluate context-specific biological networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- From Serendipity to Precision: Integrating AI, Multi-Omics, and Human-Specific Models for Personalized Neuropsychiatric Care.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Translational studies on pancreatic cancer and gastric cancer: a methodology in PhD thesis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Therapeutic interventions are designed to perturb the function of a biological system. However, there are many types of proteins that cannot be targeted with conventional small molecule drugs. Accordingly, many identified gene-regulatory drivers and downstream effectors are currently undruggable. Drivers and effectors are often connected by druggable signaling and regulatory intermediates. Methods to identify druggable intermediates therefore have general value in expanding the set of targets available for hypothesis-driven validation. Here we identify and prioritize potential druggable intermediates by developing a network perturbation theory, termed NetPert, for response functions of biological networks. Dynamics are defined by a network structure in which vertices represent genes and proteins, and edges represent gene-regulatory interactions and protein-protein interactions. Perturbation theory for network dynamics prioritizes targets that interfere with signaling from driver to response genes. Applications to organoid models for metastatic breast cancer demonstrate the ability of this mathematical framework to identify and prioritize druggable intermediates. While the short-time limit of the perturbation theory resembles betweenness centrality, NetPert is superior in generating target rankings that correlate with previous wet-lab assays and are more robust to incomplete or noisy network data. NetPert also performs better than a related graph diffusion approach. Wet-lab assays demonstrate that drugs for targets identified by NetPert, including targets that are not themselves differentially expressed, are active in suppressing additional metastatic phenotypes.
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.