Update interpretation of DrugBank actions#1265
Update interpretation of DrugBank actions#1265cthoyt wants to merge 14 commits intogyorilab:masterfrom
Conversation
01c14cc to
1459cad
Compare
1459cad to
fbe73f9
Compare
bgyori
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a few questionable cases still, for instance, we now map agonist and antagonist somewhat conservatively to Complex, but binder, binding, and antibody are still mapped to Inhibition. Do those interpretations make sense?
|
Binder and binding both are neutral, but most antibodies that I know of exert their action by binding to a protein, which either tags it for degradation or inhibits it. I think leaving as inhibits is fine. |
|
It turns out that there is a large number of entries that neither specify an action, nor declare that there is a direct interaction between the drug and the target. Since it's not clear what statement type these can be mapped to if we want to be precise, we skip them now. The statement count drops significantly, with the overall statement stats before this PR: and after this PR |
This PR closes #1263 by updating some of the interpretations made in DrugBank's action field.
It's most likely the case that all curated interactions in DrugBank imply binding between an active molecule and the target. For example, some actions like agonist, partial agonist, antagonist, partial antagonist, and inverse agonist do not give enough information to infer activates or inhibits, because they are with respect to the native ligand. Therefore, the best we can do is say that these chemicals bind to their targets (in the absence a more generic INDRA Statement for apolar regulates activity).
This PR also does the following:
Statistics
Before
After