4.5 Review

Understanding the pharmacogenetics of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG METABOLISM & TOXICOLOGY
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 1093-1118

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2014.928693

关键词

antidepressant; depression; gene; genome-wide; genome-wide association studies; pathway; pharmacogenetics; pharmacogenomics; polymorphism; serotonin reuptake inhibitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The genetic background of antidepressant response represents a unique opportunity to identify biological markers of treatment outcome. Encouraging results alternating with inconsistent findings made antidepressant pharmacogenetics a stimulating but often discouraging field that requires careful discussion about cumulative evidence and methodological issues. Areas covered: The present review discusses both known and less replicated genes that have been implicated in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) efficacy and side effects. Candidate genes studies and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were collected through MEDLINE database search (articles published till January 2014). Further, GWAS signals localized in promising genetic regions according to candidate gene studies are reported in order to assess the general comparability of results obtained through these two types of pharmacogenetic studies. Finally, a pathway enrichment approach is applied to the top genes (those harboring SNPs with p < 0.0001) outlined by previous GWAS in order to identify possible molecular mechanisms involved in SSRI effect. Expert opinion: In order to improve the understanding of SSRI pharmacogenetics, the present review discusses the proposal of moving from the analysis of individual polymorphisms to genes and molecular pathways, and from the separation across different methodological approaches to their combination. Efforts in this direction are justified by the recent evidence of a favorable cost-utility of gene-guided antidepressant treatment.

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

4.5
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