↓ Skip to main content

Identifying problematic drugs based on the characteristics of their targets

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Identifying problematic drugs based on the characteristics of their targets
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2015.00186
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiago J. S. Lopes, Jason E. Shoemaker, Yukiko Matsuoka, Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Hiroaki Kitano

Abstract

Identifying promising compounds during the early stages of drug development is a major challenge for both academia and the pharmaceutical industry. The difficulties are even more pronounced when we consider multi-target pharmacology, where the compounds often target more than one protein, or multiple compounds are used together. Here, we address this problem by using machine learning and network analysis to process sequence and interaction data from human proteins to identify promising compounds. We used this strategy to identify properties that make certain proteins more likely to cause harmful effects when targeted; such proteins usually have domains commonly found throughout the human proteome. Additionally, since currently marketed drugs hit multiple targets simultaneously, we combined the information from individual proteins to devise a score that quantifies the likelihood of a compound being harmful to humans. This approach enabled us to distinguish between approved and problematic drugs with an accuracy of 60-70%. Moreover, our approach can be applied as soon as candidate drugs are available, as demonstrated with predictions for more than 5000 experimental drugs. These resources are available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/psin/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 15%
Computer Science 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#5,725,277
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,285
of 17,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,276
of 268,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#15
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 268,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.