Back

A genomic-led strategy to anticipate drug safety effects

Ferolito, B. R.; Horimoto, A. R.; Gravel-Pucillo, K.; Golden, D. J.; Dashti, H.; Giambartolomei, C.; Rasooly, D.; Matty, R.; Gaziano, L.; Tsepilov, Y.; Costa, L.; Kosik, N.; Ioannidis, H.; Karim, M.; Winicki, G.; Hunter, F.; Langenberg, C.; Whittaker, J. C.; Cai, T.; Peloso, G. M.; Zdrazil, B.; Ghoussaini, M.; Leach, A. R.; Muralidhar, S.; Smit, I. A.; Casas, J. P.; Gaziano, J. M.; Cho, K.; Pereira, A. C.

2025-09-14 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.09.11.25335448 medRxiv
Show abstract

Safety-related issues account for approximately 28% of failures in new drug discovery programs. On top of that, many are discovered during post-marketing surveillance, significantly limiting drug utility and application. To proactively address these concerns, we developed a genetics-led strategy leveraging Mendelian Randomization (MR) across large-scale genetic datasets from the Million Veteran Program, FinnGen, and UK Biobank. By mapping genetic variants associated with gene expression and protein abundance to 1,449 harmonized human phenotypes, we systematically identified potential adverse drug reactions (ADR). Our extensive MR analysis, encompassing 16,915 protein-coding genes, demonstrated the capacity to predict hundreds of known ADR for approved medications, with approximately 40% corroborated by FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data. Additionally, we found significant enrichment of identified gene-mechanism pairs in clinical trials terminated early due to safety concerns, highlighting the clinical utility of genetics-informed safety prediction. Notably, immune-related pathways were prominently associated with ADR, indicating particular sensitivity within immune modulation targets. Our comprehensive atlas, integrating genetic evidence with pharmacological mechanisms, provides a robust predictive framework for anticipating drug safety, potentially enhancing decision-making in drug development and pharmacovigilance.

Published in PLOS Genetics (predicted rank #13) · training set

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.