Hacker News Reader

Comment by riku_iki | Hacker News Reader

> The GP was talking about pharma.

post is not about pharma specifically, but about general bio-medical literature, including genes, diseases, symptoms, etc.

> proteins make up more than 95% of the targets of the pharmaceutical industry.

do you have references to support this? Some google search says it is 280B market out of 1.5T total pharma market: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/protein-therapeutics-ma... https://www.statista.com/topics/1764/global-pharmaceutical-i...

Also, it is likely important steps how to research and produce protein drugs, but the end target is to cure diseases, so you need lots of additional data about diseases of all types, symptoms, pathways, trials, etc.

View on HN

This isn't a "do you have references" situation. You're wasting folks time. Nearly all drugs target proteins, with a few that target DNA or RNA.

You can just ignore my comments and walk away? To me you just another "internet expert" which I am not sure why should I blindly trust.

Your sources are talking about the ratio of small molecule vs. large molecule drugs. Even if you're developing small molecule drugs you are likely targeting some aspect of protein signaling/gene expression.

People are being dismissive of your comments because to say that proteins are niche in the context of pharma is like saying advertising is niche in the context of Meta and Google.

> People are being dismissive of your comments because to say that proteins are niche in the context of pharma is like saying advertising is niche in the context of Meta and Google.

its all about how you define word "niche", for google, main revenue stream is supported by several pillars: search tech, infra tech, ads tech, ecosystem+network effect, human management. You remove one pillar, and everything is destroyed, so one can say ads is one of the niches in their food chain. I suspect with proteins it is about the same.

> in the context of pharma

there is no context of pharma. Post is about more broad bio-medical publications.

I'd say it's less like pillars and more like (emergence) layers, with proteins being a pretty important layer .

I'm now not entirely sure what your experience is with bio sciences. You're definitely coming at it from an odd angle though!

I didn't claim expertise, that's why I say "it looks like", "I suspect",

Well, maybe find some time and dive in a bit and see what can be found?

You never know, maybe you'll end up contributing to our understanding of life, maybe (indirectly) even save a few lives!

I am working on the service which potentially can answer questions like in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38109294

life science is one of potential applications if there is an interest and money.

So the pathway to synthesize every protein is +/- the same: That's gene transcription[1] and translation[2]. If that's broken, you're in big trouble!

But if you mean in general if you're capable of looking at metabolic pathways where each protein catalyses a step in the pathway, that's definitely interesting. If a certain person has a flawed gene coding for protein X, that could indeed cause a problem.

To find valid answers, you might need to eg. track nodes and states in a graph, to figure all the consequences of a break. Not all types of storage systems/engines are equally good at that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(biology)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(biology)

edit: s/protein pathway/metabolic pathway/

> Not all types of storage systems/engines are equally good at that.

Yes, I built system which traverses paths in graphs with 1B nodes and 10B links in 1h on affordable server. But that's only one part of the puzzle.

Neat!

> Word of advice to all those who are chomping at the bit to disrupt pharma with AI.

Literally the first line in the comment that started this thread.

Sure, now let's read the post?

I read the post before I made any criticism of your comments. We're talking on a thread within the larger context of comments on the post. But more importantly, if you read the post, you will see there is a theme of industrial biochemistry (IE, pharma and biotech) running through it, because pharma/biotech is the primary consumer of these products, and the vast majority of the revenue stream.

> there is a theme of industrial biochemistry

that's one of the themes (and you are already working hard to stretch drugs pharma to "biochemistry"), if you can't see other themes in his examples and screenshots, I think this discussion is not interesting to me.

The first Google search link you've provided is focused on proteins as an active ingredient (like an antibody), not the targets.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6314433/ Check out this article for example.

So, that link says they discovered 1.5k FDA approved drugs which target proteins, while FDA has total 19k drugs approved: https://www.fda.gov/media/115824/download#:~:text=FDA%20regu....

Hi there. Apologies for any confusion. I was clarifying the intent of the first comment in this thread. I will add some impressionistic comments below in case it helps your future service.

Even when a drug target is unknown, or remains mysterious, very high chances are that the target is a protein. DNA or RNA as targets are niche (DNA is often avoided as a target on purpose and it’s hard to be specific to it without DNA-like material, and RNA is still hard to target effectively, though things are improving). There is not much else of use in the cells (lipids, sugars, cofactors, and metabolites, some examples of which have been targeted by a couple drugs each over the long history of trials, often unintentionally.

Small molecules are an excellent modality for an eventual approved therapy. They almost always (so far) targets a protein. They are hard to design but when they are done well they expose the target to something nature hasn’t seen before in order to get a desired effect. Sometimes people don’t care about the target itself (think recreational drugs, or phenotypic drug discovery), but the target typically remains a protein.

Proteins make up the machinery of the cell. You jam or modify them to achieve desired effects.

Also, and totally minor: there are nowhere close to 19k different approved small molecules. The same drug can be included in multiple products or formulations bringing that number you mentioned to 19k marketed products. Each generic formulation of iboprofen increases the latter count by 1. Counting all the marketed products of pure orange juice may add up to a large number but it is still one ingredient.

Yes, I compare drugs with drugs, not molecules with drugs.

No. The analysis in the paper above referred to molecules vs the snippet in the fda referred to products. More generally, other than marketing materials to doctors or patients or very rare exceptions talking about formulations etc, the scientific literature refers to the molecular entity as a drug not the particular named/branded product. I hope that the tool you are building will not mix up such concepts.

The link you posted found "1,578 US FDA-approved drugs"(exact citation).

Yes that is the standard language in the field. It does not refer to the number of marketed products. Look up the number of novel drugs approved by the FDA per year. It only recently exceeded 40 per year, and the FDA has not existed for very long.

if we consider that you are not making things up(which I am very not confident), then your link is useless in this discussion, because it doesn't give a sense how many non-protein targeting drugs were approved by FDA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com