3.8 Article

The polymorphism A118G of the human mu-opioid receptor gene decreases the pupil constrictory effect of morphine-6-glucuronide but not that of morphine

期刊

PHARMACOGENETICS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 3-9

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008571-200201000-00002

关键词

morphine; morphine-6-glucuronide; pharmacogenetics; opioid-receptors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large individual differences in the clinical response to morphine therapy have been known for a long time by clinicians. The recent advances in genomic research encourage the search for pharmacogenetic causes of that variability. As a measure of central opioid effects, pupil diameters were assessed every 20 min for 18 h after administration of morphine or its active metabolite morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) in a two-way crossover study. The opioid effects were compared between six subjects with a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) A118G in the mu-opioid receptor gene (five heterozygous, one homozygous) and six control subjects. Non-parametric pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling was employed to identify the influence of the A118G SNP on the concentration-response relationship of M6G and morphine, which was described by a sigmoid E-max model. As a measure of potency, the EC50 of the pupil constrictory effects of M6G was 714 +/- 197 nmol/l in wild-type and 1475 +/- 424 nmol/l in heterozygous carriers of the A118G SNP. In the homozygous carrier of the SNP, it had an EC50 of 3140 nmol/l. In addition, the dose-response relationship was flatter in the A118G carriers than in control subjects (shape factor of the sigmoid E-max model: gamma = 3.3 +/- 1.2, 1.7 +/- 0.5 and 1.6 for wild-type, heterozygous and the homozygous A118G carriers, respectively). In contrast, the concentration-response relationship of morphine was not affected by this specific SNP. The A118G SNP in the mu-receptor gene significantly reduces the potency of M6G in humans. Pharmacogenetics 12:3-9 (C) 2002 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

3.8
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