$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Bulk RNA-sequencing enables the comparison of expression levels for thousands of genes across a population of case cells versus a population of control cells. Experiments are typically designed to include at least triplicate samples, ideally biological replicates, though technical replicates can suffice. This design accounts for biological variability and reduces the impact of outlier samples. Analysis of these expression patterns provides detailed insight into the effect of the disease of interest on normal cellular processes and can potentially enable the prediction of relevant therapeutics.
Preprocessing of bulk RNA-sequencing data typically includes: quality control of sequencing reads (for repeats, sequencing adapters, GC%, etc.), read trimming and adapter removal, read mapping/quantitation1,2,3, and differential expression analysis4,5,6. Fortunately, a variety of analytical processes have been automated to reduce manual work associated with these steps7,8,9. After preprocessing is complete, commonly performed downstream analyses include functional overrepresentation analysis with Gene Ontologies, signaling pathways enrichment, and variation in splicing. These downstream analyses summarize and facilitate interpretation of the differential expression results at a higher level of granularity than the gene lists alone.
Various tools have been developed with the goal of repurposing existing therapeutics for a well-defined type or subtype of disease. This is achieved by training the algorithm on multiple-omics data types for the intended disease. Unfortunately, such efforts to improve specificity and sensitivity in an intended disease often make using the tools in more general contexts suboptimal10,11. Another set of tools is more broadly applicable to cases where gene expression profiles are matched to either existing signatures of gene expression12,13, or to the quantified effects of current therapeutics14,15. However, these more broadly applicable tools often achieve reduced specificity and sensitivity across a wide range of diseases and/or were trained with outdated data.
In contrast, the Pathway2Targets algorithm has previously been applied to predict potential therapeutic targets in B-cell lymphoma, periodontitis, estrogen-positive breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and chikungunya virus16,17,18,19,20,21. The results from these studies demonstrate that this tool is capable of predicting robust and biologically relevant targets. Impressively, Pathway2Targets predicted 392 potential drug targets for triple-negative breast cancer, among which 60 were tested in clinical trials; as well as 828 individual drugs for TBNC, with 37 being tested17. In the lymphoma study, this algorithm predicted 915 drugs, 461 of which are FDA-approved19.
The aim of the current work is to describe a computational protocol that will enable more researchers, who may benefit from access to more descriptive instructions on running programs on the command-line, to effectively use the recently developed Pathway2Targets algorithm (Figure 1). Pathway2Targets predicts targets for a given condition by combining differential expression data, gene-disease associations, clinical trial information, public target data22, pathway information, and other metrics. Importantly, this algorithm incorporates a unique and customizable weighting scheme, which allows users to determine the ~20 target-related metrics that they prefer to emphasize in their analysis, such as number of disease associations, number of signaling pathways, number of unique drugs, number of therapeutics in each phase of clinical trials, etc.23. As an example use case for this protocol, we will re-analyze an existing colorectal cancer dataset24.