4.2 Article

Association of thymidylate synthase enhancer region polymorphisms with thymidylate synthase activity in vivo

Journal

PHARMACOGENOMICS JOURNAL
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 307-314

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/tpj.2010.43

Keywords

TSER; polymorphism; promoter; luciferase; USF-1; dUrd

Funding

  1. Margaret Mitchell and Jane Reid Harle Memorial Grant, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two known polymorphisms in the 5' enhancer region (ER) of the thymidylate synthase (TS) gene, a variable number of tandem repeats of a 28 bp sequence (2R/3R) and a further G>C single nucleotide substitution within the repeats, result in genotypes with 0-5 functional upstream stimulatory factor (USF) E-box consensus elements. However, the relationship between these polymorphisms, regulation of TS expression and patient response to fluoropyrimidine treatment has been inconsistent. In this study, seven possible TSER allele configurations showed similar patterns of luciferase gene expression regardless of cell type or USF-1 content, with no significant difference in promoter activity between the wild-type 2RGC and 3RGGC (1.40 +/- 0.37 vs 1.43 +/- 0.32, P = 0.90), whereas the minor alleles, 2RCC and 3RGCC, were significantly reduced (0.84 +/- 0.17, P = 0.01) and increased (3.19 +/- 0.72, P = 0.001) respectively. Patient plasma levels of 2'-deoxyuridine, a surrogate marker of TS activity, were significantly different between genotypes (P<0.001) and inversely related to luciferase activity (P = 0.02) but not to the absolute number of functional repeated elements (P = 0.16), suggesting that the position, rather than the number of functional USF E-box repeats in the TSER, is responsible for determining gene expression in vitro and TS activity in vivo. The Pharmacogenomics Journal (2011) 11, 307-314; doi:10.1038/tpj.2010.43; published online 8 June 2010

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available