Novel opportunities for computational biology and sociology in drug discovery

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 161-170

  Yao, Lixia ^a   Evans, James A ^b   Rzhetsky, Andrey ^b,c  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; AMANTADINE; DIAZEPAM; NEW DRUG; WARFARIN;

BIOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA MINING; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG ERUPTION; DRUG USE; ERRATUM; GENE; HUMAN; MOLECULAR MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIOLOGY;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 77949655881     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.01.004     Document Type: Erratum

References (68)

1. Oberholzer-Gee F., Inamdar S.N. Merck's recall of rofecoxib - a strategic perspective. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351:2147-2149.
2. Public Citizen Report (2001) Rx R&D myths: the case against the drug industry's R&D " scare card" Public Citizen Congress Watch.
3. Tobert J.A. Lovastatin and beyond: the history of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2:517-526.
4. Apic G., et al. Illuminating drug discovery with biological pathways. FEBS Lett. 2005, 579:1872-1877.
5. Ananiadou S., et al. Text mining and its potential applications in systems biology. Trends Biotechnol. 2006, 24:571-579.
6. Rzhetsky A., et al. Seeking a new biology through text mining. Cell 2008, 134:9-13.
7. Garten Y., Altman R.B. Pharmspresso: a text mining tool for extraction of pharmacogenomic concepts and relationships from full text. BMC Bioinformatics 2009, 10(Suppl. 2):S6.
8. Druker B.J., Lydon N.B. Lessons learned from the development of an abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor for chronic myelogenous leukemia. J. Clin. Invest. 2000, 105:3-7.
9. Anastassiou D. Computational analysis of the synergy among multiple interacting genes. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007, 3:83.
10. Campillos M., et al. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science 2008, 321:263-266.
11. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication 1949, University of Illinois Press.
12. Butte A.J., Kohane I.S. Mutual information relevance networks: functional genomic clustering using pairwise entropy measurements. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 2000, 418-429.
13. Basso K., et al. Reverse engineering of regulatory networks in human B cells. Nat. Genet. 2005, 37:382-390.
14. Watkinson J., et al. Identification of gene interactions associated with disease from gene expression data using synergy networks. BMC Syst. Biol. 2008, 2:10.
15. Almenoff J.S., et al. Novel statistical tools for monitoring the safety of marketed drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 82:157-166.
16. Chen Y., et al. Variations in DNA elucidate molecular networks that cause disease. Nature 2008, 452:429-435.
17. Chen L.S., et al. Harnessing naturally randomized transcription to infer regulatory relationships among genes. Genome Biol. 2007, 8:R219.
18. Liu J., et al. Analysis of Drosophila segmentation network identifies a JNK pathway factor overexpressed in kidney cancer. Science 2009, 323:1218-1222.
19. Yildirim M.A., et al. Drug-target network. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1119-1126.
20. Yao L., Rzhetsky A. Quantitative systems-level determinants of human genes targeted by successful drugs. Genome Res. 2008, 18:206-213.
21. Zimmermann G.R., et al. Multi-target therapeutics: when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12:34-42.
22. Borisy A.A., et al. Systematic discovery of multicomponent therapeutics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2003, 100:7977-7982.
23. Qutub A.A., et al. Integration of angiogenesis modules at multiple scales: from molecular to tissue. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 2009, 316-327.
24. Klein M.L., Shinoda W. Large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of self-assembling systems. Science 2008, 321:798-800.
25. Marrer E., Dieterle F. Promises of biomarkers in drug development - a reality check. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2007, 69:381-394.
26. Marrer E., Dieterle F. Biomarkers in oncology drug development: rescuers or troublemakers?. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2008, 4:1391-1402.
27. Owen R.P., et al. PharmGKB and the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium: the changing role for pharmacogenomic databases and single-drug pharmacogenetics. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29:456-460.
28. Holly M.K., et al. Biomarker and drug-target discovery using proteomics in a new rat model of sepsis-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 2006, 70:496-506.
29. Dudley J.T., Butte A.J. Identification of discriminating biomarkers for human disease using integrative network biology. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 2009, 27-38.
30. Chiang A.P., Butte A.J. Data-driven methods to discover molecular determinants of serious adverse drug events. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 85:259-268.
31. Nelson A.E., et al. Failure of serum transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β1) as a biomarker of radiographic osteoarthritis at the knee and hip: a cross-sectional analysis in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:772-776.
32. Newman M.E. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004, 101(Suppl 1):5200-5205.
33. Fleming L., Frenken K. The evolution of inventor networks in the silicon valley and Boston regions. Adv. Complex Syst. 2007, 10:53-71.
34. Wuchty S., et al. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316:1036-1039.
35. Burt R.S. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 2004, 110:349-399.
36. Fleming L., Sorenson O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Res. Pol. 2001, 30:1019-1039.
37. Guimera R., et al. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 2005, 308:697-702.
38. Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci. 2004, 15:5-21.
39. Fritsch M., Franke G. Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Res. Pol. 2004, 33:245-255.
40. Acs Z.J., et al. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Res. Pol. 2002, 31:1069-1085.
41. Jaffe A.B., et al. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 1993, 108:577-598.
42. National Research Council Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology 1997, National Academy Press.
43. Merton R.K. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1957, 22:635-659.
44. Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society 1987, Harvard University Press.
45. Partha D., David P.A. Toward a new economics of science. Res. Pol. 1994, 23:487-521.
46. Cohen, W.M., et al. (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552.
47. Anonymous Disease and demography. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2008, 27:1051.
48. Berndt E.R., et al. Advance market commitments for vaccines against neglected diseases: estimating costs and effectiveness. Health Econ. 2006, 16:491-511.
49. Powell W.W. Interorganizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 1996, 120:197-215.
50. Heller M.A., Eisenberg R.S. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998, 280:698-701.
51. Goldwasser E. Erythropoietin: a somewhat personal history. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1996, 40:18-32.
52. Jelkmann W. Erythropoietin after a century of research: younger than ever. Eur. J. Haematol. 2007, 78:183-205.
53. Jones B.F. The burden of knowledge and the " death of the Renaissance man": is innovation getting harder?. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2009, 76:283-317.
54. Jensen K., Murray F. Intellectual property. Enhanced: intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 2005, 310:239-240.
55. Heller M.A., Eisenberg R.S. The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harv. Law Rev. 1998, 111:621-688.
56. Turner J.S. The nonmanufacturing patent owner: toward a theory of efficient infringement. Calif. Law Rev. 1998, 86:179-210.
57. Murray F., Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J. Econ. Behav. Organiz. 2007, 63:648-687.
58. Lipkus A.H., et al. Structural diversity of organic chemistry. A scaffold analysis of the CAS Registry. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73:4443-4451.
59. Klein T.E., et al. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360:753-764.
60. Eichelbaum M., et al. New feature: pathways and important genes from PharmGKB. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 2009, 19:403.
61. Garber K.B., et al. Fragile X syndrome. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2008, 16:666-672.
62. Mulligan L.M., et al. Genetic mapping of DNA segments relative to the locus for the fragile-X syndrome at Xq27.3. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1985, 37:463-472.
63. Gedeon A.K., et al. Fragile X syndrome without CCG amplification has an FMR1 deletion. Nat. Genet. 1992, 1:341-344.
64. Bakker C.E., et al. Fmr1 knockout mice: a model to study fragile X mental retardation. The Dutch-Belgian Fragile X Consortium. Cell 1994, 78:23-33.
65. de Vrij F.M., et al. Rescue of behavioral phenotype and neuronal protrusion morphology in Fmr1 KO mice. Neurobiol. Dis. 2008, 31:127-132.
66. Pecknold J.C., et al. Treatment of anxiety using fenobam (a nonbenzodiazepine) in a double-blind standard (diazepam) placebo-controlled study. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 1982, 2:129-133.
67. Jacob W., et al. The anxiolytic and analgesic properties of fenobam, a potent mGlu5 receptor antagonist, in relation to the impairment of learning. Neuropharmacology 2009, 57:97-108.
68. Berry-Kravis E., et al. A pilot open label, single dose trial of fenobam in adults with fragile X syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 2009, 46:266-271.