Cause-effect relationships in medicine: A protein network perspective

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 547-555

  Fliri, Anton F ^a   Loging, William T ^b   Volkmann, Robert A ^a  

^a SystaMedic Inc   (United States)

^b BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2 METHYLPROPANETHIOIC ACID S [2 [1 (2 ETHYLBUTYL)CYCLOHEXYLCARBOXAMIDO]PHENYL] ESTER; ANACETRAPIB; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CELECOXIB; CETUXIMAB; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FINASTERIDE; GEFITINIB; ILOMASTAT; IMATINIB; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; PREDNISONE; ROFECOXIB; TORCETRAPIB; VINCRISTINE;

CELL INTERACTION; CHINESE MEDICINE; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TARGETING; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE TYPE ALOPECIA; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TUMOR GENE;

BIOMARKERS, PHARMACOLOGICAL; DISEASE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS; HUMANS; METABOLIC NETWORKS AND PATHWAYS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEINS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77958153651     PISSN: 01656147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2010.07.005     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Giacomini K.M., et al. When good drugs go bad. Nature 2007, 446:975-977.
2. Cohen A.A., et al. Dynamic proteomics of individual cancer cells in response to a drug. Science 2008, 322:1511-1516.
3. Kumar D., Rao K.V.S. Systems biology and medicine. Curr. Trends Sci. 2009, 379-393.
4. Fishman M.C., Porter J.A. Pharmaceuticals: a new grammar for drug discovery. Nature 2005, 437:491-493.
5. Berger S.I., Iyengar R. Network analyses in systems pharmacology. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:2466-2472.
6. Hopkins A.L. Network pharmacology. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1110-1111.
7. Lim J., et al. A protein-protein interaction network for human inherited ataxias and disorders of Purkinje cell degeneration. Cell 2006, 125:801-814.
8. Missiuro P.V., et al. Information flow analysis of interactome networks. PloS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000350.
9. Fliri A.F., et al. Drug effects viewed from a signal transduction network perspective. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:8038-8046.
10. Schadt E.E., et al. A network view of disease and compound screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8:286-295.
11. Han J-D.J. Understanding biological functions through molecular networks. Cell Res. 2008, 18:224-237.
12. Ideker T., Sharan R. Protein networks in disease. Genome. Res. 2008, 18:644-652.
13. Ruffner H., et al. Human protein-protein interactions and the value for drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12:709-716.
14. Yamada T., Bork P. Evolution of biomolecular networks-lessons from metabolic and protein interactions. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10:791-803.
15. Goh K.I., et al. The human disease network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:8685-8690.
16. Kann M.G. Protein interactions and disease: computational approaches to uncover the etiology of diseases. Brief. Bioinform. 2007, 8:333-346.
17. Amberger J., et al. McKusick's Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM). Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:D793-D796.
18. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh.
19. Edgar R., et al. Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30:207-210.
20. Young A., et al. Ontology-Traverser: an R package for GO analysis. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:275-276.
21. Li Y., Agarwal P. A pathway-based view of human disease and disease relationships. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e4346.
22. de Godoy L.M.F., et al. Status of complete proteome analysis by mass spectrometry: SILAC labeled yeast as a model system. Genome. Biol. 2006, 7:R50.
23. Cox J., Mann M. Is proteomics the new genomics?. Cell 2007, 130:395-398.
24. Bonaldi T., et al. Combined use of RNAi and quantitative proteomics to study gene function in Drosophila. Mol. Cell 2008, 31:762-772.
25. Macek B., et al. Global and site-specific quantitative phosphoproteomics: principles and applications. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2009, 49:199-221.
26. Olsen J.V., et al. Global, in vivo, and site-specific phosphorylation dynamics in signaling networks. Cell 2006, 127:635-648.
27. Radko S.P., et al. Aptamers as affinity reagents for clinical proteomics. Biochem. (Moscow) Suppl. Ser. B: Biomed. Chem. 2007, 1:198-209.
28. Ciaccio M.F., et al. Systems analysis of EGF receptor signaling dynamics with microwestern arrays. Nat. Methods 2010, 7:148-155.
29. Fliri A.F., et al. Analysis of system structure-function relationships. ChemMedChem 2007, 2:1774-1782.
30. Rual J.F., et al. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein-protein interaction network. Nature 2005, 437:1173-1178.
31. Ewing R.M., et al. Large-scale mapping of human protein-protein interactions by mass spectrometry. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007, 3:89.
32. Selbach M., Mann M. Protein interaction screening by quantitative immunoprecipitation combined with knockdown (QUICK). Nat. Methods 2006, 3:981-983.
33. Nicholson R.L., et al. Small-molecule screening: Advances in microarraying and cell-imaging technologies. ACS Chem. Biol. 2007, 2:24-30.
34. Guo Y., et al. Using support vector machine combined with auto covariance to predict protein-protein interactions from protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36:3025-3030.
35. Xia K., et al. IntNetDB v1.0:An integrated protein-protein interaction network database generated by a probabilistic model. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7:508.
36. Sethi A., et al. Dynamical networks in tRNA:protein complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:6620-6625.
37. Pan R.K., et al. Mesoscopic organization reveals the constraints governing Caenorhabditis elegans nervous system. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e9240.
38. Horvitz H.R., Sternberg P.W. Multiple intercellular signalling systems control the development of the Caenorhabdtis elegans vulva. Nature 1991, 351:535-541.
39. Faustino R.S., Terzic A. Bioinformatic networks: molecular reticles for pinpointing pharmacological target selection. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 84:543-545.
40. Zhong Q., et al. Edgetic perturbation models of human inherited disorders. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2009, 5:321.
41. Kim P.M., et al. Relating three-dimensional structures to protein networks provides evolutionary insights. Science 2006, 314:1938-1941.
42. He X., Zhang J. Why do hubs tend to be essential in protein networks?. PLoS. Genet. 2006, 2:e88.
43. Tsai C.-J., et al. Protein-protein interaction networks: how can a hub protein bind so many different partners?. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2009, 34:594-600.
44. Han J.D., et al. Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein-protein interaction network. Nature 2004, 430:88-93.
45. Sharan R., et al. Network-based prediction of protein function. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007, 3:88.
46. Hwang W.C., et al. Identification of information flow-modulating drug targets: a novel bridging paradigm for drug discovery. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 84:563-572.
47. Hase T., et al. Structure of protein interaction networks and their implications on drug design. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000550.
48. Goehler H., et al. A protein interaction network links GIT1, an enhancer of huntingtin aggregation, to Huntington's disease. Mol. Cell 2004, 15:853-865.
49. Kaltenbach I.S., et al. Huntingtin interacting proteins are genetic modifiers of neurodegeneration. PLoS Genet. 2007, 3:e82.
50. Pujana M.A., et al. Network modeling links breast cancer susceptibility and centrosome dysfunction. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39:1338-1349.
51. Hwang S., et al. A protein interaction network associated with asthma. J. Theor. Biol. 2008, 252:722-731.
52. Suthram S., et al. The Plasmodium protein network diverges from those of other eukaryotes. Nature 2005, 438:108-112.
53. Raman K., Chandra N. Mycobacterium tuberculosis interactome analysis unravels potential pathways to drug resistance. BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8:234.
54. Li J., et al. Building disease-specific drug-protein connectivity maps from molecular interaction networks and PubMed abstracts. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000450.
55. Chu L.H., Chen B.S. Construction of a cancer-perturbed protein-protein interaction network for discovery of apoptosis drug targets. BMC Syst. Biol. 2008, 2:56.
56. Chuang H.Y., et al. Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2007, 3:140.
57. Diez D., et al. The use of network analyses for elucidating mechanisms in cardiovascular disease. Mol. BioSyst 2010, 6:289-304.
58. Tanaka T., et al. Pharmacogenomics of cardiovascular pharmacology: pharmacogenomic network of cardiovascular disease models. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2008, 107:8-14.
59. de Chassey B., et al. Hepatitis C virus infection protein network. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2008, 4:230.
60. Jonsson P.F., Bates P.A. Global topological features of cancer proteins in the human interactome. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2291-2297.
61. Oti M., Bruner H.G. The modular nature of genetic diseases. Clin.Genet. 2007, 71:1-11.
62. Saxena R., et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies loci for type 2 diabetes and triglyceride levels. Science 2007, 316:1331-1336.
63. Schuster-Boeckler B., Bateman A. Protein interactions in human genetic diseases. Genome. Biol. 2008, 9:R9.
64. Kitano H. A robustness-based approach to systems-oriented drug design. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6:202-210.
65. Xu J.J., et al. Cellular imaging predictions of clinical drug-induced liver injury. Toxicol. Sci. 2008, 105:97-105.
66. Zanzoni A., et al. A network approach to human disease. FEBS Letters 2009, 583:1759-1765.
67. Russell R.B., Aloy P. Targeting and tinkering with interaction networks. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2008, 4:666-673.
68. Ma'ayan A., et al. Network analysis of FDA approved drugs and their targets. Mt. Sinai. J. Med. 2007, 74:27-32.
69. Yildirim M.A., et al. Drug-target network. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:1119-1126.
70. Ruths D., et al. The signaling petri net-based simulator: a non-parametric strategy for characterizing the dynamics of cell-specific signaling networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2008, 4:e1000005.
71. Dasika M.S., et al. A computational framework for the topological analysis and targeted disruption of signal transduction networks. Biophys. J. 2006, 91:382-398.
72. Schoeberl B., et al. Therapeutically targeting ErbB3: a key node in ligand-induced activation of the ErbB receptor-P13K axis. Sci. Signal. 2009, 2:ra31.
73. Nacher J.C., Schwartz J.M. A global view of drug-therapy interactions. BMC Pharmacol. 2008, 8:5.
74. Knight Z.A., et al. Targeting the cancer kinome through polypharmacology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10:130-137.
75. Yang K., et al. Finding multiple target optimal intervention in disease-related molecular network. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2008, 4:228.
76. Korcsmáros T., et al. How to design multi-target drugs: target search options in cellular networks. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2007, 2:1-10.
77. Gin J., et al. The knowledge-integrated network biomarkers discovery for major adverse cardiac events. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7:4013-4021.
78. Dixon S.J., Stockwell B.R. Drug discovery: engineering drug combinations. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6:318-319.
79. Jia J., et al. Mechanisms of drug combinations:interaction and network perspectives. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8:111-128.
80. Gupta G.P., et al. Mediators of vascular remodeling co-opted for sequential steps in lung metastasis. Nature 2007, 446:765-770.
81. Zhao J., et al. Molecular networks for the study of TCM pharmacology. Brief. Bioinform. 2010, 11:417-430.
82. Geva-Zatorsky N., et al. Protein dynamics in drug combinations: a linear superposition of individual drug responses. Cell 2010, 140:643-651.
83. Pujol A., et al. Unveiling the role of network and systems biology in drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2010, 31:115-123.
84. Ekman P. Finasteride in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy: an update. New indications for finasteride therapy. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. 1999, 203:15-20.
85. Fliri A.F., et al. Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns to link structure and side effects of medicines. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2005, 1:389-397.
86. Campillos M., et al. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science 2008, 321:263-266.
87. Kuhn M., et al. A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs. Mole. Syst. Biol. 2010, 6:343.
88. Mitsos A., et al. Identifying drug effects via pathway alterations using an integer linear programming optimization formulation on phosphoproteomic data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000591.
89. Xie L., et al. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: Identification of the protein-ligand binding network to explain the side effects of CETP inhibitors. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000387.
90. Lee S., et al. Building a drug-target network and its applications. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2009, 4:1177-1189.
91. Arrell D.K., Terzic A. Network Systems Biology for Drug Discovery. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 88:120-125.