4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Haplotypes of variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 and 1A1 genes

期刊

PHARMACOGENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 295-301

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01213011-200505000-00004

关键词

UGT1A1; UGT1A9; haplotypes; SN-38; irinotecan

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [U01 GM61374, U01 GM61393] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Nine different functional UGT1 A enzymes are generated from a single UGT1A gene by alternative splicing, with each enzyme having a unique exon 1. SN-38, the active metabolite of the anticancer agent irinotecan, is metabolized by both UGT1A1 and UGT1A9. We aim to characterize the UGT1A9-UGT1A1 haplotypes in Asians and Caucasians and gain insights on their functional consequences. Methods Asian and Caucasian individuals were genotyped for UGT1A1 and UGT1A9 variants. Results A higher frequency of the UGT1A9 -118T(10) allele was observed in Asians compared to Caucasians, while the -275T>A and -2152C>T variants were relatively uncommon in Caucasians and not found in Asians. The strongest linkage disequilibrium (LID) was observed between the UGT1A1 -53 and -3156 and between the UGT1A9 - 275 and - 2152 loci. Lower LD was observed between the - 118 UGT1A9 variant and the UGT1A 1 variants. Fourteen UGT1A9-UGT1A1 haplotypes were found in Asians, seven of them found to be shared by both populations. Common UGT1A9-UGT1A1 diplotypes were defined, and a difference was observed across the SN-38 glucuronidation rates in Caucasian livers stratified by diplotypes. Conclusion This study for the first time described common UGT1A9-UGT1A1 haplotypes, highlighting important ethnic differences between Asians and Caucasians. If the functional effect of these haplotypes can be confirmed, this haplotypic information would be applicable to the correct design of prospective clinical studies of irinotecan, as well as of other drugs primarily metabolized by both UGT1A1 and UGT1A9. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.2
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