4.3 Article

Phenotype-genotype analysis of CYP1A2 in Japanese patients receiving oral theophylline therapy

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 23-28

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-005-0057-z

Keywords

cytochrome P450 1A2; gene polymorphism; theophylline; caffeine; phenotype-genotype analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To clarify the association between the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 genotype with the CYP1A2 phenotype and to search for the CYP1A2*1K haplotype, which has been shown to decrease CYP1A2 inducibility and/or other functional polymorphisms in Japanese. Methods: Two polymorphisms, CYP1A2*1C and CYP1A2*1F, were genotyped in 126 patients receiving oral slow-release theophylline (TP) therapy and in 224 healthy volunteers. The CYP1A2 phenotype was assessed by the plasma [1-methyluric acid (1U) + 3-methylxanthine (3X)]/TP ratio in the patients. The volunteers were given 150 mg caffeine, and the urine [1X+1U+5-acetylamino-6-amino-3-methyluracil (AAMU)]/17U ratio was used for CYP1A2 phenotyping. CYP1A2 intron 1 and six exons (exon 2-exon 7) were sequenced in the patients whose (1U+3X)/TP ratios were below the mean-2SD of those of all patients, and intron 1 was also sequenced in an additional 20 healthy volunteers exhibiting putative low CYP1A2 activities. Results: The individual (1U+3X)/TP ratios ranged from 0.007 to 0.21 (a 30-fold difference) in the patients, and the (1X+1U+AAMU)/17U ratios ranged from 1.6 to 112 (a 70-fold difference) in the healthy volunteers. The CYP1A2 activities were not significantly influenced by CYP1A2*1C or CYP1A2*1F. We found no functional polymorphisms by a sequencing analysis. Conclusion: These results suggest that the CYP1A2*1C and CYP1A2*1F genotypes are not crucial factors for the variability of CYP1A2 activity and that the CYP1A2*1K haplotype is either nil or only shows a very low frequency in Japanese.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available