Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Survey of Approved Drugs Intended to Shed Light on Potential New Therapies

Researchers have created a map of all 1578 licensed drugs and their mechanisms of action as a means of identifying “uncharted waters” in the search for future treatments. Their analysis of drugs licensed through the U.S. FDA reveals that 667 separate proteins

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Researchers have created a map of all 1578 licensed drugs and their mechanisms of action as a means of identifying “uncharted waters” in the search for future treatments. Their analysis of drugs licensed through the U.S. FDA reveals that 667 separate proteins in the human body have had drugs developed against them—just an estimated 3.5% of the 20,000 human proteins.

And as many as 70% of all targeted drugs created so far work by acting on just four families of proteins, thus leaving vast swathes of human biology untouched by drug-discovery programs.

The study is the most comprehensive analysis of existing drug treatments across all diseases ever conducted. It was jointly led by scientists at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, which also funded the research.

The new map reveals areas where human genes and the proteins they encode could be promising targets for new treatments and could also be used to identify where a treatment for one disease could be effective against another. The new data, published in a paper in the journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (“A Comprehensive Map of Molecular Drug Targets”), could be used to improve treatments for all human aliments as diverse as cancer, mental illness, chronic pain, and infectious disease.

Scientists brought together vast amounts of information from huge datasets including the canSAR database at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), the ChEMBL database from the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in Cambridge, and the University of New Mexico’s DrugCentral database. They matched each drug with prescribing information and data from published scientific papers and built up a comprehensive picture of how existing medicines work and where the gaps and opportunities for the future lie.

The researchers discovered that there are 667 unique human proteins targeted by existing approved drugs, and they identified a further 189 drug targets in organisms that are harmful to humans, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites. On average they found there were two drugs for every target in humans but that a handful of proteins were targeted by many different drugs, such as the glucocorticoid receptor, which is the target of 61 anti-inflammatory drugs. Cancer was found to be the most innovative disease area, with the greatest growth in “first-in-class” drugs.

Using big data analytical techniques, the researchers identified four very frequently “drugged” families of proteins—accounting for 43% of all drug targets and acting as targets for 70% of all approved small-molecule drugs. The new map of drugs can now be used to identify other proteins with similar properties to these most heavily drugged families, which might be potentially exciting treatment targets for diseases such as cancer. And bringing together complex data from multiple sources within the drug map could predict the best combinations of drugs to give. Targeting two proteins that behave in a similar way is unlikely to be effective against diseases such as cancer, whereas targeting proteins with very different functions could be much more successful.

“Our new study provides a comprehensive map of the current state of medicines for human disease. It identifies areas where drug discovery has been a spectacular success, others where there are major gaps in our armory of medicines, and opportunities for the future in the form of promising targets and potential drug combinations. By revealing the uncharted waters of drug discovery, it will provide a clear pointer for future exploration and innovation,” said Bissan Al-Lazikani, Ph.D., head of data science, The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“We need to do more to innovate in drug discovery if we are really going to tackle the major medical challenges we face, such as cancer’s ability to evolve drug resistance in response to treatment,” added Paul Workman, Ph.D., chief executive of The Institute of Cancer Research. “But to help direct future efforts in drug discovery, we first need a very accurate and comprehensive picture of the targets of the medicines that have been created so far, what is currently working, and most importantly where there is the greatest potential for the future. This new map of drugs, created through the latest computational analytical technologies, will enhance our ability to use rational, data-driven approaches to identify the most promising future targets and treatment combinations for the next generation of cancer and other diseases.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →