Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 759–763 | Cite as

Drug Repurposing: Far Beyond New Targets for Old Drugs

  • T. I. Oprea
  • J. Mestres
Commentary Theme: New Paradigms in Pharmaceutical Sciences: In Silico Drug Discovery

Abstract

Repurposing drugs requires finding novel therapeutic indications compared to the ones for which they were already approved. This is an increasingly utilized strategy for finding novel medicines, one that capitalizes on previous investments while derisking clinical activities. This approach is of interest primarily because we continue to face significant gaps in the drug–target interactions matrix and to accumulate safety and efficacy data during clinical studies. Collecting and making publicly available as much data as possible on the target profile of drugs offer opportunities for drug repurposing, but may limit the commercial applications by patent applications. Certain clinical applications may be more feasible for repurposing than others because of marked differences in side effect tolerance. Other factors that ought to be considered when assessing drug repurposing opportunities include relevance to the disease in question and the intellectual property landscape. These activities go far beyond the identification of new targets for old drugs.

Key words

drug repurposing drug–target interactions intellectual property side effect tolerance target identification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by NIH grants 5R21GM095952-02 and 5U54MH084690-04 (TIO) and by the Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III (JM) through the Drugs4Rare project within the framework of the International Rare Disease Research Consortium.

References

  1. 1.
    Oprea TI. Sense and nonsense in drug discovery: a chemical perspective. In: Kruse CG, Timmerman H, editors. Towards drugs of the future. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2008. p. 29–36.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuster D, Laggner C, Langer T. Why drugs fail—a study on side effects in new chemical entities. Curr Pharmaceut Design. 2005;11:3545–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindsay MA. Target discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:831–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashburn TT, Thor KB. Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:673–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao S, Li S. Network-based relating pharmacological and genomic spaces for drug target identification. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Service RF. Surviving the blockbuster syndrome. Science. 2004;303:1796–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuatrecasas P. Drug discovery in jeopardy. J Clin Invest. 2006;116:2837–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:959–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chong CR, Sullivan DJ. New uses for old drugs. Nature. 2006;448:645–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oprea TI, Nielsen SK, Ursu O, Yang JJ, Taboureau O, Mathias SL, et al. Associating drugs, targets, clinical outcomes into an integrated network affords a new platform for computer-aided drug repurposing. Mol Inf. 2011;30:100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oprea TI. Virtual screening in lead discovery: a viewpoint. Molecules. 2002;7:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seibert K, Zhang Y, Leahy K, Hauser S, Masferrer J, Perkins W, et al. Pharmacological and biochemical demonstration of the role of cyclooxygenase 2 in inflammation and pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:12013–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurumbail RG, Stevens AM, Gierse JK, Mcdonald JJ, Stegeman RA, Pak JA, et al. Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory agents. Nature. 1996;384:644–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warner TD, Giuliano F, Vojnovic I, Bukasa A, Mitchell JA, Vane JR. Nonsteroid drug selectivities for cyclo-oxygenase-1 rather than cyclo-oxygenase-2 are associated with human gastrointestinal toxicity: a full in vitro analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:7563–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Merck & Co., Inc. Merck announces voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx® (press release) Whitehouse Station, NJ; 2004 Sep 30.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Da Silva GMS, Lima LM, Fraga CAM, Sant’Anna CMR, Barreiro EJ. The molecular basis for coxib inhibition of p38α MAP kinase. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2005;15:3506–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Weber W, Casini A, Heine A, Kuhn D, Supuran CT, Scozzafava A, et al. Unexpected nanomolar inhibition of carbonic anhydrase by COX-2-selective celecoxib: new pharmacological opportunities due to related binding site recognition. J Med Chem. 2004;47:550–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjané E, Valverde S, Solé RV. Data completeness—the Achilles heel of drug-target networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:983–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321:263–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keiser MJ, Setola V, Irwin JJ, Laggner C, Abbas AI, Hufeisen SJ, et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature. 2009;462:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mestres J, Seifert SA, Oprea TI. Linking pharmacology to clinical records: cyclobenzaprine and its possible association with serotonin syndrome. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:662–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oprea TI, Bauman JE, Bologa CG, Buranda T, Chigaev A, Edwards BS, et al. Drug repurposing from an academic perspective. Drug Discov Today: Therap Strategies. 2011;8:61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin BK, Clyne M, Walsh M, Gomez O, Yu W, Gwinn M, et al. Tracking the epidemiology of human genes in the literature: the HuGE Published Literature database. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang JO, Hwang S, Oh J, Bhak J, Sohn T-K. An integrated database-pipeline system for studying single nucleotide polymorphisms and diseases. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:S19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strachan RT, Ferrara G, Roth BL. Screening the receptorome: an efficient approach for drug discovery and target validation. Drug Discov Today. 2006;11:708–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cases M, Mestres J. A chemogenomic approach to drug discovery: focus on cardiovascular diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:479–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flachner B, Lörincz Z, Carotti A, Nicolotti O, Kuchipudi P, Remez N, et al. A chemocentric approach to the identification of cancer targets. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e0035582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steinbach G, Lynch PM, Phillips RK, Wallace MH, Hawk E, Gordon GB, et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1946–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kawamori T, Rao CV, Seibert K, Reddy BS. Chemopreventive activity of celecoxib, a specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, against colon carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 1998;58:409–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wermuth CG. The ‘SOSA’ approach: an alternative to high-throughput screening. Med Chem Res. 2001;10:431–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Curley D, Easey A. Drug repurposing and repatenting. Bio-Science Law Review. 2009;10:131–4.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sanderson K. Big interest in heavy drugs. Nature. 2009;458:269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjané E, Valverde S, Solé RV. The topology of drug-target interaction networks: implicit dependence on drug properties and target families. Mol BioSyst. 2009;5:1051–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Briansó F, Carrascosa MC, Oprea TI, Mestres J. Cross-pharmacology analysis of G protein-coupled receptors. Curr Top Med Chem. 2011;11:1956–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sleigh SH, Barton CL. Repurposing strategies for therapeutics. Pharm Med. 2010;24:151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Collins FS. Mining for therapeutic gold. Nature Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Day RO. Wrong questions, wrong answers? Are we getting the drugs we need? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91:367–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kinnings SL, Xie L, Fung KH, Jackson RM, Xie L, Bourne PE. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis drugome and its polypharmacological implications. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010;6:e1000976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shigemizu D, Hu Z, Hung JH, Huang CL, Wang Y, Delisi C. Using functional signatures to identify repositioned drugs for breast, myelogenous leukemia and prostate cancer. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8:e1002347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Translational Informatics Division, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of New Mexico School of Medicine, MSC10 5550, 1 University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Systems BiologyTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Chemogenomics Laboratory, Research Program on Biomedical Informatics (GRIB)IMIM—Hospital del Mar Research Institute and University Pompeu Fabra, Parc de Recerca BiomèdicaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations