↓ Skip to main content

How Reliable Are Ligand-Centric Methods for Target Fishing?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Reliable Are Ligand-Centric Methods for Target Fishing?
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2016.00015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Peón, Cuong C. Dang, Pedro J. Ballester

Abstract

Computational methods for Target Fishing (TF), also known as Target Prediction or Polypharmacology Prediction, can be used to discover new targets for small-molecule drugs. This may result in repositioning the drug in a new indication or improving our current understanding of its efficacy and side effects. While there is a substantial body of research on TF methods, there is still a need to improve their validation, which is often limited to a small part of the available targets and not easily interpretable by the user. Here we discuss how target-centric TF methods are inherently limited by the number of targets that can possibly predict (this number is by construction much larger in ligand-centric techniques). We also propose a new benchmark to validate TF methods, which is particularly suited to analyse how predictive performance varies with the query molecule. On average over approved drugs, we estimate that only five predicted targets will have to be tested to find two true targets with submicromolar potency (a strong variability in performance is however observed). In addition, we find that an approved drug has currently an average of eight known targets, which reinforces the notion that polypharmacology is a common and strong event. Furthermore, with the assistance of a control group of randomly-selected molecules, we show that the targets of approved drugs are generally harder to predict. The benchmark and a simple target prediction method to use as a performance baseline are available at http://ballester.marseille.inserm.fr/TF-benchmark.tar.gz.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 59 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 30%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 12 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Computer Science 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2020.
All research outputs
#12,890,894
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#718
of 5,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,906
of 300,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,951 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.