Erratum: High-throughput electronic biology: mining information for drug discovery (Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2007) vol. 6 (220-230) 10.1038/nrd2265);High-throughput electronic biology: Mining information for drug discovery

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 220-230

  Loging, William ^a   Harland, Lee ^b   Williams Jones, Bryn ^b  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

BIOINFORMATICS; BIOLOGY; BIOMEDICINE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; COOPERATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA MINING; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG TARGETING; EMBASE; EXPERIMENTATION; EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAG; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC DATABASE; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE DATABASE; REVIEW; SEQUENCE DATABASE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

EID: 33847401924     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd2345     Document Type: Erratum

References (85)

1. Searls, D. B. Data integration - connecting the dots. Nature Biotech. 8, 844-845 (2003).
2. Searls, D. B. Data integration: Challenges for drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 45-58 (2005).
3. US Government Accountability Office. New Drug Development: Science, Business, Regulatory, and Intellectual Property Issues Cited as Hampering Drug Development Efforts. US Government Accountability Office web site [online], (2006).
4. Blagosklonny, M. V. & Pardee, A. B. Conceptual biology: Unearthing the gems. Nature 416, 373 (2002).
5. Weeber, M. et al. Generating hypotheses by discovering implicit associations in the literature: A case report of a search for new potential therapeutic uses for thalidomide. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10, 252-259 (2003).
6. Smith U.M. et al. The transmembrane protein meckelin (MKS3) is mutated in Meckel-Gruber syndrome and the wpk rat. Nature Genet. 38, 191-196 (2006).
7. Laaksonen R, et al. A systems biology strategy reveals biological pathways and plasma biomarker candidates for potentially toxic statin-induced changes in muscle. PLoS ONE 1, e97 (2006).
8. Kumar, N. et al. Applying computational modeling to drug discovery and development. Drug Discov. Today 11, 806-811 (2006).
9. Cho, C. R. et al. The application of systems biology to drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 10, 294-302 (2006).
10. Butte, A. & Kohane, I. Creation and implications of a phenome-genome network. Nature Biotech. 24, 55-62 (2006).
11. Kim, H. & Dafna, B. Modulation of signalling of sprouty: A developing story Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 441-450 (2004).
12. Schoeberl, B. et al. Computational modeling of the dynamics of the MAP kinase cascade activated by surface and internalized EGF receptors. Nature Biotech. 20, 370-375 (2002).
13. Galperin M. Y. The molecular biology database collection: 2007 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 35 (database issue), D3-D4 (2006).
14. Stromback, L. et al. Representing, storing and accessing molecular interaction data: A review of models and tools. Brief. Bioinformatics 7, 331-338 (2006).
15. Ashburner, M. et al. Gene Ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium Nature Genet. 25, 25-29 (2003).
16. Torr-Brown, S. Advances in knowledge management for pharmaceutical research and development. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 8, 316-322 (2005).
17. Neumann, E. K. & Quan, D. Biodash: A semantic web dashboard for drug development. Pac. Symp. Biocomp. 11, 176-187 (2006).
18. Blake, J. A. & Bult, C. J. Beyond the data deluge: Data integration and bio-ontologies. J. Biomed. Inform. 39, 314-320 (2006).
19. Potts S. J., Edwards D. J. & Hoffman R. Challenges of target/compound data integration from disease to chemistry: A case study of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 2, 75-87 (2005).
20. Erhardt, R. A., Schneider, R. & Blaschke, C. Status of text-mining techniques applied to biomedical text. Drug Discov. Today 11, 315-325 (2006).
21. Hu, Y. et al. Analysis of genomic and proteomic data using advanced literature mining. J. Proteome Res. 2, 405-412 (2003).
22. Wlodek, D. & Gonzales, M. Decreased energy levels can cause and sustain obesity. J. Theor. Biol. 225, 33-44 (2003).
23. Pospisil, P., Iyer, L. K., Adelstein, S. J. & Kassis, A. I. A combined approach to data mining of textual and structured data to identify cancer-related targets. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 354-365 (2006).
24. Stegmann, J. & Grohmann, G. Hypothesis generation guided by co-word clustering. Scientometrics 56, 111-135 (2003).
25. Wren, J. D., Bekeredjian, R., Stewart, J. A., Shohet, R. V. & Garner H. R. Knowledge discovery by automated identification and ranking of implicit relationships. Bioinformatics 20, 389-398 (2004).
26. Carley, D. W. Drug repurposing: Identify, develop and commercialize new uses for existing or abandoned drugs. Part I. Drugs 8, 306-309 (2005).
27. Marks, D. J. et al. Defective acute inflammation in Crohn's disease: A clinical investigation. Lancet 367, 668-678 (2006).
28. Habashi, J. P. et al. Losartan, an AT1 antagonist, prevents aortic aneurysm in a mouse model of Marfan syndrome. Science 312, 117-121 (2006).
29. Ozcan, U. et al. Chemical chaperones reduce ER stress and restore glucose homeostasis in a mouse model of type 2 diabetes. Science 313, 1137-1140 (2006).
30. Krauthammer, M. et al. Molecular triangulation: Bridging linkage and molecular-network information for identifying candidate genes in Alzheimer's disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 15148-15153 (2004).
31. Tiffin, N. et al. Computational disease gene identification: A concert of methods prioritizes type 2 diabetes and obesity candidate genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, 3067-3081 (2006).
32. Owens, D., Grimley, J. & Kirkpatrick, P. Inhaled human insulin. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 371-372 (2006).
33. Fitzgerald, G. A. Anticipating change in drug development: The emerging era of translational medicine and therapeutics. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 815-818 (2005).
34. Liu J. J. et al. Multiclass cancer classification and biomarker discovery using GA-based algorithms. Bioinformatics 21, 2691-2697 (2005).
35. Mittleman, B. B. Biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus: Has the right time finally arrived? Arthritis Res. Ther. 6, 223-224 (2004).
36. Baker, M. In biomarkers we trust? Nature Biotech. 23, 297-304 (2005).
37. Lindsay, M. Finding new drug targets in the 21st century. Drug Discov. Today 10, 1683-1687 (2005).
38. Kling, J. From hypertension to angina to Viagra. Modern Drug Discov. 1, 31-38 (1998).
39. Mullins, I. M. et al. Data mining and clinical data repositories: insights from a 667,000 patient data set. Comput. Biol. Med. 36, 1351-1377 (2006).
40. 2C receptor and antipsychotic-induced weight gain - mechanisms and genetics. J. Psychopharmacol. 20, 15-18 (2006).
41. 2 receptor subtypes. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 3, 649-659 (2005).
42. Jensen, L. J., Saric, J. & Bork, P. Literature mining for the biologist: from information retrieval to biological discovery. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 119-129 (2006).
43. Swanson, D. R. On the fragmentation of knowledge, the connection explosion, and assembling other people's ideas. ASIST Award of Merit acceptance speech. Bulletin ASIST 27, 12-14 (2001).
44. Hopkins, A. L. & Groom, C. R. The druggable genome. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727-730 (2002).
45. Lui, J. & Rost, B. Target space for structural genomics revisited. Bioinformatics 18, 922-933 (2002).
46. Vinod, P. K., Konkimalla, B. & Chandra, N. In-silico pharmacodynamics: correlation of adverse effects of H2-antihistamines with histamine N-methyl transferase binding potential. Appl. Bioinformatics 5, 141-150 (2006).
47. Hajduk, P. J., Huth, J. R. & Fesik, S. W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48, 2518-2525 (2005).
48. An, J., Totrov, M. & Abagyan R. Comprehensive identification of 'druggable' protein ligand binding sites. Genome Inform. 15, 31-41 (2004).
49. Cheng, A. et al. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability analysis. Nature Biotech. 25, 71-75 (2007).
50. Nair, R. & Rost, B. LOCnet and LOCtarget: Sub-cellular localization for structural genomics targets. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, W517-W521 (2004).
51. Froloff, N. et al. in Chemogenomics: Knowledge-based Approaches to Drug Discovery (ed. Jacoby, E.) 175-206 (Imperial College Press, London, 2006).
52. Birault, V. et al. Bringing kinases into focus: Efficient drug design through the use of chemogenomic toolkits. Curr. Med. Chem. 13, 1735-1748 (2006).
53. Hug, H. et al. Ontology-based knowledge management of troglitazone-induced hepatotoxicity. Drug Discov. Today 9, 948-953 (2004).
54. Frye, S. V. Structure-activity relationship homology (SARAH): A conceptual framework for drug discovery in the genomic era. Chem. Biol. 6, R3-R7 (1999).
55. Nettles J. H. et al. Bridging chemical and biological space: 'target fishing' using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 49, 6802-6810 (2006).
56. Schuffenhauer, A. & Jacoby, E. Annotating and mining the ligand-target chemogenomics knowledge space. Drug Discov. Today: BioSilico 2, 190-200 (2004).
57. Eriksson T., Bjorkman S., Roth B. & Hoglund P. Intravenous formulations of the enantiomers of thalidomide: Pharmacokinetic and initial pharmacodynamic characterization in man. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 52, 807-817 (2005).
58. Kalgutkar A. S. & Soglia J. R. Minimising the potential for metabolic activation in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 1, 91-142 (2005).
59. Spinks, D. & Spinks, G. Serotonin reuptake inhibition: An update on current research strategies. Curr. Med. Chem. 9, 799-810 (2002).
60. Sanderson, D. M. & Earnshaw, C. G. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; The DEREK system. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10, 261-273 (1991).
61. Patlewicz, G., Rodford, R. & Walker, J. D. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22, 1885-1893 (2003).
62. Greene N. Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: An update. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 31, 417-431 (2002).
63. Mayne, J. T., Ku, W. W. & Kennedy, S. P. Informed toxicity assessment in drug discovery: Systems-based toxicology. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 9, 75-83 (2006).
64. Niculescu, S. P., Atkinson, A., Hammond G. & Lewis M. Using fragment chemistry data mining and probabilistic neural networks in screening chemicals for acute toxicity to the fathead minnow. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15, 293-309 (2004).
65. Krejsa, C. M. et al. Predicting ADME properties and side effects: The BioPrint approach. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 6, 470-480 (2003).
66. White, A. C., Mueller, R. A., Gallavan, R. H., Aaron, S. & Wilson, A. G. A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure. Mutat. Res. 5, 77-89 (2003).
67. Dearden, J. C. In silico prediction of drug toxicity. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 119-127 (2003).
68. Snyder, R. D. et al. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 43, 143-158 (2004).
69. Fliri, A. F., Loging, W. T., Thadeio, P. & Volkmann, R. A. Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 261-266 (2005).
70. Fliri, A. F., Loging, W. T., Thadeio, P. & Volkmann, R. A. Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns linking structure and side effects of medicines. Nature Chem. Biol. 1, 389-397 (2005).
71. Fliri, A. F., Loging, W. T., Thadeio, P. & Volkmann, R. A. Biospectra analysis: Model proteome characterizations for linking molecular structure and biological response. J. Med. Chem. 48, 6918-6925 (2005).
72. Weggen, S. et al. A subset of NSAIDs lower amyloidogenic Aβ42 independently of cyclooxygenase activity. Nature 414, 212-216 (2001).
73. Lehmann, J. et al. Redesigning drug discovery. Nature 384 (Suppl. 6604), 1-5 (1996).
74. Lamb, J. et al. The connectivity map: Using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 29, 1929-1935 (2006).
75. Fielden, M. R. & Kolaja, K. L. The state-of-the-art in predictive toxicogenomics. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 9, 84-91 (2006).
76. Quackenbush, J. Top-down standards will not serve systems biology. Nature 440, 24 (2006).
77. Southern, E. M. Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. J. Mol. Biol. 98, 503-517 (1975).
78. Kleppe, K., Ohtsuka, E., Kleppe, R., Molineux, I. & Khorana, H. G. Studies on polynucleotides. XCVI. Repair replications of short synthetic DNA's as catalyzed by DNA polymerases. J. Mol. Biol. 56, 341-361 (1971).
79. Mullis, K., et al. Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: The polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 51, 263-273 (1986).
80. Kell, D. B. & Oliver, S. G. Here is the evidence now what is the hypothesis? The complimentary role of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. Bioessays 26, 99-109 (2004).
81. Pao, M. L. Concepts of Information Retrieval (Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, Colorado, 1989).
82. Gund, P., Maliski, E. & Brown, F. The evolution of pharmaceutical informatics as a discipline Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 9, 301-302 (2006)
83. Swanson, D. R. Fish oil, Raynaud's syndrome, and undiscovered public knowledge. Perspect. Biol. Med. 30, 7-18 (1986).
84. Nasukawa, T. & Nagano, T. Text analysis and knowledge mining system. IBM Systems J. 40, 967-984 (2001).
85. Rhodes et al. Mining patents using molecular similarity search. Pac. Symp. Biocomput.12, 304-315 (2007).