4.8 Article

Genetic variants in TPMT and COMT are associated with hearing loss in children receiving cisplatin chemotherapy

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 1345-U118

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.478

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genome Canada
  2. Genome British Columbia
  3. Child and Family Research Institute
  4. University of British Columbia Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences
  5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  6. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  7. Canada Gene Cure Foundation
  8. Canadian Society of Clinical Pharmacology
  9. BC Clinical Genomics Network
  10. C17 Research Network and Childhood Cancer Foundation Candlelighters Canada
  11. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Health Canada, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck Frosst and Janssen-Ortho
  12. Genome Canada Applied Health Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cisplatin is a widely used and effective chemotherapeutic agent, although its use is restricted by the high incidence of irreversible ototoxicity associated with it(1). In children, cisplatin ototoxicity is a serious and pervasive problem, affecting more than 60% of those receiving cisplatin(2-5) and compromising language and cognitive development. Candidate gene studies have previously reported associations of cisplatin ototoxicity with genetic variants in the genes encoding glutathione S-transferases and megalin(6-8). We report association analyses for 220 drug-metabolism genes in genetic susceptibility to cisplatin-induced hearing loss in children. We genotyped 1,949 SNPs in these candidate genes in an initial cohort of 54 children treated in pediatric oncology units, with replication in a second cohort of 112 children recruited through a national surveillance network for adverse drug reactions in Canada. We identified genetic variants in TPMT (rs12201199, P value = 0.00022, OR = 17.0, 95% CI 2.3-125.9) and COMT (rs9332377, P value = 0.00018, OR = 5.5, 95% CI 1.9-15.9) associated with cisplatin-induced hearing loss in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据