4.7 Article

Identifying nootropic drug targets via large-scale cognitive GWAS and transcriptomics

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 1788-1801

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-021-01023-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH117646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified 241 independent cognition-associated loci (29 novel) using meta-analytic data, and 76 genes were identified by multiple methods. Novel pathways such as actin and chromatin binding were discovered as potential drug targets for cognitive repurposing. By leveraging transcriptomic and chemoinformatic databases, 16 putative genes targeted by existing drugs were identified for cognitive repurposing.
Broad-based cognitive deficits are an enduring and disabling symptom for many patients with severe mental illness, and these impairments are inadequately addressed by current medications. While novel drug targets for schizophrenia and depression have emerged from recent large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of these psychiatric disorders, GWAS of general cognitive ability can suggest potential targets for nootropic drug repurposing. Here, we (1) meta-analyze results from two recent cognitive GWAS to further enhance power for locus discovery; (2) employ several complementary transcriptomic methods to identify genes in these loci that are credibly associated with cognition; and (3) further annotate the resulting genes using multiple chemoinformatic databases to identify druggable targets. Using our meta-analytic data set (N = 373,617), we identified 241 independent cognition-associated loci (29 novel), and 76 genes were identified by 2 or more methods of gene identification. Actin and chromatin binding gene sets were identified as novel pathways that could be targeted via drug repurposing. Leveraging our transcriptomic and chemoinformatic databases, we identified 16 putative genes targeted by existing drugs potentially available for cognitive repurposing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据