Commentary: Using human genetics to guide the repurposing of medicines

Genomic strategies for drug repurposing

Functional genomics, a multidisciplinary subject, investigates the functions of genes and their products in biological systems to better understand diseases and find new drugs. Drug repurposing is an economically efficient approach that entails discovering novel therapeutic applications for already-available medications. Genomics enables the identification of illness and therapeutic molecular characteristics and interactions, which in turn facilitates the process of drug repurposing. Techniques like gene expression profiling and Mendelian randomization are helpful in identifying possible medication candidates. Progress in computer science allows for the investigation and modeling of gene expression networks that involve large amounts of data. The amalgamation of data concerning DNA, RNA, and protein functions bears similarity to pharmacogenomics, a crucial aspect in crafting cancer therapeutics. Functional genomics in drug discovery, particularly for cancer, is still not thoroughly investigated, despite the existence of a significant amount of literature on the subject. Next-generation sequencing and proteomics present highly intriguing opportunities. Publicly available databases and mining techniques facilitate the development of cancer treatments based on functional genomics. Broadening the exploration and utilization of functional genomics holds significant potential for advancing drug discovery and repurposing, particularly within the realm of oncology.

Integrating genomics with biomarkers and therapeutic targets to invigorate cardiovascular drug development

Drug development in cardiovascular disease is stagnating, with lack of efficacy and adverse effects being barriers to innovation. Human genetics can provide compelling evidence of causation through approaches such as Mendelian randomization, with genetic support for causation increasing the probability of a clinical trial succeeding. Mendelian randomization applied to quantitative traits can identify risk factors for disease that are both causal and amenable to therapeutic modification. However, important differences exist between genetic investigations of a biomarker (such as HDL cholesterol) and a drug target aimed at modifying the same biomarker of interest (such as cholesteryl ester transfer protein), with implications for the methodology, interpretation and application of Mendelian randomization to drug development. Differences include the comparative nature of the genetic architecture - that is, biomarkers are typically polygenic, whereas protein drug targets are influenced by either cis-acting or trans-acting genetic variants - and the potential for drug targets to show disease associations that might differ from those of the biomarker that they are intended to modify (target-mediated pleiotropy). In this Review, we compare and contrast the use of Mendelian randomization to evaluate potential drug targets versus quantitative traits. We explain how genetic epidemiological studies can be used to assess the aetiological roles of biomarkers in disease and to prioritize drug targets, including designing their evaluation in clinical trials.

Genetic feature engineering enables characterisation of shared risk factors in immune-mediated diseases

BACKGROUND

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified pervasive sharing of genetic architectures across multiple immune-mediated diseases (IMD). By learning the genetic basis of IMD risk from common diseases, this sharing can be exploited to enable analysis of less frequent IMD where, due to limited sample size, traditional GWAS techniques are challenging.

METHODS

Exploiting ideas from Bayesian genetic fine-mapping, we developed a disease-focused shrinkage approach to allow us to distill genetic risk components from GWAS summary statistics for a set of related diseases. We applied this technique to 13 larger GWAS of common IMD, deriving a reduced dimension "basis" that summarised the multidimensional components of genetic risk. We used independent datasets including the UK Biobank to assess the performance of the basis and characterise individual axes. Finally, we projected summary GWAS data for smaller IMD studies, with less than 1000 cases, to assess whether the approach was able to provide additional insights into genetic architecture of less common IMD or IMD subtypes, where cohort collection is challenging.

RESULTS

We identified 13 IMD genetic risk components. The projection of independent UK Biobank data demonstrated the IMD specificity and accuracy of the basis even for traits with very limited case-size (e.g. vitiligo, 150 cases). Projection of additional IMD-relevant studies allowed us to add biological interpretation to specific components, e.g. related to raised eosinophil counts in blood and serum concentration of the chemokine CXCL10 (IP-10). On application to 22 rare IMD and IMD subtypes, we were able to not only highlight subtype-discriminating axes (e.g. for juvenile idiopathic arthritis) but also suggest eight novel genetic associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Requiring only summary-level data, our unsupervised approach allows the genetic architectures across any range of clinically related traits to be characterised in fewer dimensions. This facilitates the analysis of studies with modest sample size by matching shared axes of both genetic and biological risk across a wider disease domain, and provides an evidence base for possible therapeutic repurposing opportunities.