Analysis | Published:

A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 16, pages 1934 (2017) | Download Citation


The success of mechanism-based drug discovery depends on the definition of the drug target. This definition becomes even more important as we try to link drug response to genetic variation, understand stratified clinical efficacy and safety, rationalize the differences between drugs in the same therapeutic class and predict drug utility in patient subgroups. However, drug targets are often poorly defined in the literature, both for launched drugs and for potential therapeutic agents in discovery and development. Here, we present an updated comprehensive map of molecular targets of approved drugs. We curate a total of 893 human and pathogen-derived biomolecules through which 1,578 US FDA-approved drugs act. These biomolecules include 667 human-genome-derived proteins targeted by drugs for human disease. Analysis of these drug targets indicates the continued dominance of privileged target families across disease areas, but also the growth of novel first-in-class mechanisms, particularly in oncology. We explore the relationships between bioactivity class and clinical success, as well as the presence of orthologues between human and animal models and between pathogen and human genomes. Through the collaboration of three independent teams, we highlight some of the ongoing challenges in accurately defining the targets of molecular therapeutics and present conventions for deconvoluting the complexities of molecular pharmacology and drug efficacy.

Key points

  • The definition of a drug target is crucial to the success of mechanism-based drug discovery. It is also increasingly important for efforts to link drug response to genetic variation, understand stratified clinical efficacy and safety, rationalize the differences between drugs in the same therapeutic class and predict drug utility in patient subgroups.

  • In this article, we synthesized and built on our previous approaches and systematically recompiled and comprehensively annotated the current list of drugs approved by the US FDA. We assigned to each drug their respective efficacy target or target set from the prescribing information and/or the scientific literature.

  • We curated a total of 893 human and pathogen-derived biomolecules through which 1,578 FDA-approved drugs act. These include 667 human-genome-derived proteins targeted by drugs for human disease.

  • We emphasize that even with a well-defined concept of efficacy there are challenges in making a clean unambiguous assignment in many cases, especially regarding how to treat protein complexes or drugs that bind to a number of closely related gene products.

  • We also mapped each drug (and thereby target) to the WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System code as a way of obtaining a standard therapeutic indication for them.

  • With this mapping, we explored the footprint of target classes across disease areas, investigated the success of privileged target families and compiled a list of drug target orthologues for standard model organisms to develop a foundation for the deeper understanding of species differences, cross-species drug repositioning and applicability of animal models.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    The Nobel chronicles. Lancet 355, 1022 (2000).

  2. 2.

    Genomic sciences and the medicine of tomorrow. Nat. Biotechnol. 14, 1516–1518 (1996). An early and influential review on the prospects for genomics and drug discovery. The associated target list is presented in reference 3.

  3. 3.

    & Classic drug targets. Nat. Biotechnol. 15, 1350 (1997).

  4. 4.

    & The druggable genome. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727–730 (2002). The first attempt to define the future druggable genome on the basis of successful drug development programmes.

  5. 5.

    Prioritizing the human genome: knowledge management for drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 6, 310–316 (2003).

  6. 6.

    , & Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 821–835 (2006).

  7. 7.

    , & How many drug targets are there? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 993–996 (2006). A 10-year old review on the then-known landscape of drug targets.

  8. 8.

    , & TTD: Therapeutic Target Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 412–415 (2002).

  9. 9.

    et al. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D668–D672 (2006).

  10. 10.

    et al. SuperTarget and Matador: resources for exploring drug–target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D919–D922 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , & Trends in the exploitation of novel drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 579–590 (2011). A more recent review on the landscape of drug targets.

  12. 12.

    Forensic analysis of drug targets from 2000 through 2012. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 94, 407–411 (2013). A recent overview of drug and target approvals for 2000–2012.

  13. 13.

    , & Novelty in the target landscape of the pharmaceutical industry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 575–576 (2013). This paper addresses the target diversity across large pharmaceutical companies — are all companies pursuing the same targets?

  14. 14.

    et al. The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to pharmacology: an expert-driven knowledgebase of drug targets and their ligands. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1098–D1106 (2014).

  15. 15.

    et al. DrugCentral: online drug compendium. Nucleic Acids Res. 10.1093/nar/gkw993 (2016).

  16. 16.

    et al. canSAR: an updated cancer research and drug discovery knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D938–D943 (2016).

  17. 17.

    et al. The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1083–D1090 (2014).

  18. 18.

    & Lorcaserin and pimavanserin: emerging selectivity of serotonin receptor subtype-targeted drugs. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 4986–4991 (2013).

  19. 19.

    Pimavanserin for the treatment of Parkinson's disease psychosis. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 14, 1969–1975 (2013).

  20. 20.

    & Aripiprazole, a 'dopamine–serotonin system stabilizer' in the treatment of psychosis. German J. Psychiatry 6, 9–16 (2003).

  21. 21.

    et al. Differential effects of aripiprazole on D2, 5-HT2, and 5-HT1A receptor occupancy in patients with schizophrenia: a triple tracer PET study. Am. J. Psychiatry 164, 1411–1417 (2007).

  22. 22.

    et al. The dopamine stabilizer (–)-OSU6162 occupies a subpopulation of striatal dopamine D2/D3 receptors: an [11C]raclopride PET study in healthy human subjects. Neuropsychopharmacology 40, 472–479 (2015).

  23. 23.

    , , , & (eds) Rang and Dale's Pharmacology 7th edn (Elsevier Health Sciences UK, 2012). A comprehensive and classic book on pharmacology and drug mode of action.

  24. 24.

    et al. Expression of muscarinic receptors by human macrophages. Eur. Respir. J. 39, 698–704 (2012).

  25. 25.

    , , & The role of pirenzepine-sensitive (M1) muscarinic receptors in vagally mediated bronchoconstriction in humans. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 139, 446–449 (1989).

  26. 26.

    , , & Penicillin-binding proteins 2x and 2b as primary PBP targets in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Microb. Drug Resist. 2, 183–186 (1996).

  27. 27.

    et al. Vandetanib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase iii trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 134–141 (2012).

  28. 28.

    et al. Molecular biology of the MEN2 gene. J. Intern. Med. 243, 505–508 (1998).

  29. 29.

    et al. Use-dependent inhibition of hHCN4 by ivabradine and relationship with reduction in pacemaker activity. Br. J. Pharmacol. 150, 37–46 (2007).

  30. 30.

    et al. Dronedarone's inhibition of If current is the primary mechanism responsible for its bradycardic effect. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 24, 914–918 (2013).

  31. 31.

    et al. Identification of the molecular site of ivabradine binding to HCN4 channels. PLoS ONE 8, e53132 (2013).

  32. 32.

    et al. Class III antiarrhythmic drug dronedarone inhibits cardiac inwardly rectifying Kir2.1 channels through binding at residue E224. Naunyn. Schmiedebergs. Arch. Pharmacol. 387, 1153–1161 (2014).

  33. 33.

    et al. Structural basis of drugs that increase cardiac inward rectifier Kir2.1 currents. Cardiovasc. Res. 104, 337–346 (2014).

  34. 34.

    , & Pleiotropic effects of antiarrhythmic agents: dronedarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Clin. Med. Insights Cardiol. 7, 127–140 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference 38th edn (Pharmaceutical Press, 2014).

  36. 36.

    Swiss Pharmaceutical Society. Index Nominum: International Drug Directory 18th edn (Medpharm Scientific Publishers, 2004).

  37. 37.

    Ligand-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2, 750–763 (2002).

  38. 38.

    International Cancer Genome Consortium. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464, 993–998 (2010).

  39. 39.

    et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature 502, 333–339 (2013).

  40. 40.

    et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013).

  41. 41.

    et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505, 495–501 (2014).

  42. 42.

    et al. Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature 448, 561–566 (2007).

  43. 43.

    & Drugging cancer genomes. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 889–890 (2013).

  44. 44.

    , , & ABC transporters in cancer: more than just drug efflux pumps. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 147–156 (2010).

  45. 45.

    , , , & Objective assessment of cancer genes for drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 35–50 (2013). A review of cancer drug targets and approaches to prioritize target selection.

  46. 46.

    , & Principles of cancer therapy: oncogene and non-oncogene addiction. Cell 136, 823–837 (2009).

  47. 47.

    & Oncogene addiction. Cancer Res. 68, 3077–3080 (2008).

  48. 48.

    et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1697–1708 (2015).

  49. 49.

    Proteasome addiction defined in Ewing sarcoma is effectively targeted by a novel class of 19S proteasome inhibitors Cancer Res. 76, 4525–4534 (2016).

  50. 50.

    , & The discovery of first-in-class drugs: origins and evolution. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 577–587 (2014).

  51. 51.

    & How were new medicines discovered? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 507–519 (2011).

  52. 52.

    & Unpicking the combination lock for mutant BRAF and RAS melanomas. Cancer Discov. 3, 14–19 (2013).

  53. 53.

    , & Blocking the survival of the nastiest by HSP90 inhibition. Oncotarget 7, 3658–3661 (2016).

  54. 54.

    , , , & Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 805–815 (2006).

  55. 55.

    , & Prodrugs — from serendipity to rational design. Pharmacol. Rev. 63, 750–771 (2011).

  56. 56.

    et al. The NCGC pharmaceutical collection: a comprehensive resource of clinically approved drugs enabling repurposing and chemical genomics. Sci. Transl Med. 3, 80ps16 (2011).

  57. 57.

    et al. Ensembl BioMarts: a hub for data retrieval across taxonomic space. Database 2011, bar030 (2011).

  58. 58.

    et al. Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D84–D90 (2012).

  59. 59.

    & InParanoid 8: orthology analysis between 273 proteomes, mostly eukaryotic. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D234–D239 (2015).

  60. 60.

    United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USP Dictionary of USAN and International Drug Names 2010 (United States Pharmacopeia, 2010).

  61. 61.

    , , & Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 197–208 (2011).

  62. 62.

    et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 19, 1639–1645 (2009).

Download references


The work of the authors is supported by the following institutes, organizations and grants: (1) Wellcome Trust Strategic Awards WT086151/Z/08/Z, WT104104/Z/14/Z to J.P.O., A.G., A.H. and A.P.B.; (2) the member states of EMBL to R.S., R.S.D, A.G., A.H., A.P.B.); (3) US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants 1U54CA189205-01 to O.U., A.G., A.H., A.K., C.G.B., T.I.O. and J.P.O., and NIH grants P30CA118100 and UL1TR001449 to T.I.O.; and (4) B.A.-L. is funded by the Institute of Cancer Research. canSAR is funded by The Cancer Research UK grant to the Cancer Research UK Cancer Therapeutics Unit (grant C309/A11566). The authors thank many of their collaborators for discussions and valuable input in the preparation of this manuscript, in particular the members of the Illuminating the Druggable Genome consortium.

Author information

Author notes

    • Rita Santos

    Present address: Computational Biology and Target Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research Centre, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2NY, UK.

    • Anneli Karlsson
    •  & John P. Overington

    Present address: BenevolentAI, 40 Churchway, London NW1 1LW, UK.


  1. European Molecular Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK.

    • Rita Santos
    • , Anna Gaulton
    • , A. Patrícia Bento
    • , Ramesh S. Donadi
    • , Anneli Karlsson
    • , Anne Hersey
    •  & John P. Overington
  2. Translational Informatics Division, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, MSC09 5025, 700 Camino de Salud NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA.

    • Oleg Ursu
    • , Cristian G. Bologa
    •  & Tudor I. Oprea
  3. Cancer Research UK Cancer Therapeutics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK.

    • Bissan Al-Lazikani


  1. Search for Rita Santos in:

  2. Search for Oleg Ursu in:

  3. Search for Anna Gaulton in:

  4. Search for A. Patrícia Bento in:

  5. Search for Ramesh S. Donadi in:

  6. Search for Cristian G. Bologa in:

  7. Search for Anneli Karlsson in:

  8. Search for Bissan Al-Lazikani in:

  9. Search for Anne Hersey in:

  10. Search for Tudor I. Oprea in:

  11. Search for John P. Overington in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bissan Al-Lazikani or Anne Hersey or Tudor I. Oprea or John P. Overington.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information S1 (box)

    Receptors mediating the effects of antipsychotics

  2. 2.

    Supplementary information S3 (figure)

    Deconvoluting the average number of drugs per target, and targets per drug.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary information S4 (figure)

    Rate of target innovation.

  4. 4.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information S5 (figure)

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information S2 (table)

  2. 2.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information S6 (table)

About this article

Publication history



Further reading