Anna Nordmark1, Stefan Lundgren, Birgitta Ask, Fredrik Granath, Anders Rane. 1. Department of Medical Laboratory Science and Technology, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, C-168, Huddinge University Hospital, SE-141 86 Stockholm, Sweden. anna.nordmark@labtek.ki.se
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the influence of the CYP1A2*1F mutation on CYP1A2 activity in smoking and nonsmoking pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women (n = 904) who served as control subjects in a case-control study of early fetal loss were investigated. They were phenotyped for CYP1A2 using dietary caffeine and the urinary ratio AFMU + 1X + 1 U/1,7 U. An assay for CYP1A2*1F using 5'-nuclease assay (Taqman) was developed to genotype the population. RESULTS: The frequencies of *1 A and *1F alleles among Swedish women were 0.29 and 0.71, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in CYP1A2 activity between the genotypes, although a trend towards enhanced activity was observed in *1F/*1F (log MRc 0.77) and *1F/*1 A (log MRc 0.82) genotypes compared with the *1 A/*1 A genotype (log MRc 0.71) (anovaP = 0.07). The mean difference between the *1 A homozygotes and the heterozygotes was 0.11 [95% confidence interval of the difference: (-0.21, -0.01)] and that between the *1 A and *1F homozygotes was 0.05 [95% confidence interval of the difference: (-0.13, 0.03)]. No significant effect (P = 0.22) of the *1F on CYP1A2 activity was observed in smokers, tested using an interaction term (smoking * genotype) in the anova model (*1F/*1F log MRc 0.79, *1F/*1 A log MRc 0.86, and *1 A/*1 A log MRc 0.73). In smokers, there was no difference in ratio between homozygotes for the *1 A and *1F alleles [mean difference -0.06; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -0.22, 0.11] or between *1 A/*1 A and *1 A/*1F genotypes [mean difference -0.13; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -0.29, 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the CYP1A2*1F mutation on CYP1A2 activity in smoking pregnant women could not be confirmed.
AIMS: To investigate the influence of the CYP1A2*1F mutation on CYP1A2 activity in smoking and nonsmoking pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women (n = 904) who served as control subjects in a case-control study of early fetal loss were investigated. They were phenotyped for CYP1A2 using dietary caffeine and the urinary ratio AFMU + 1X + 1 U/1,7 U. An assay for CYP1A2*1F using 5'-nuclease assay (Taqman) was developed to genotype the population. RESULTS: The frequencies of *1 A and *1F alleles among Swedish women were 0.29 and 0.71, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in CYP1A2 activity between the genotypes, although a trend towards enhanced activity was observed in *1F/*1F (log MRc 0.77) and *1F/*1 A (log MRc 0.82) genotypes compared with the *1 A/*1 A genotype (log MRc 0.71) (anovaP = 0.07). The mean difference between the *1 A homozygotes and the heterozygotes was 0.11 [95% confidence interval of the difference: (-0.21, -0.01)] and that between the *1 A and *1F homozygotes was 0.05 [95% confidence interval of the difference: (-0.13, 0.03)]. No significant effect (P = 0.22) of the *1F on CYP1A2 activity was observed in smokers, tested using an interaction term (smoking * genotype) in the anova model (*1F/*1F log MRc 0.79, *1F/*1 A log MRc 0.86, and *1 A/*1 A log MRc 0.73). In smokers, there was no difference in ratio between homozygotes for the *1 A and *1F alleles [mean difference -0.06; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -0.22, 0.11] or between *1 A/*1 A and *1 A/*1F genotypes [mean difference -0.13; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -0.29, 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the CYP1A2*1F mutation on CYP1A2 activity in smoking pregnant women could not be confirmed.
Authors: T G Schulze; J Schumacher; D J Müller; H Krauss; D Alfter; A Maroldt; G Ahle; A O Maroldt; A Novo y Fernández; T Weber; T Held; P Propping; W Maier; M M Nöthen; M Rietschel Journal: Am J Med Genet Date: 2001-08-08
Authors: S Cnattingius; L B Signorello; G Annerén; B Clausson; A Ekbom; E Ljunger; W J Blot; J K McLaughlin; G Petersson; A Rane; F Granath Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K J Aitchison; F J Gonzalez; L C Quattrochi; A Sapone; J H Zhao; H Zaher; G Elizondo; C Bryant; J Munro; D A Collier; A I Makoffa; R W Kerwin Journal: Pharmacogenetics Date: 2000-11
Authors: V S Basile; V Ozdemir; M Masellis; M L Walker; H Y Meltzer; J A Lieberman; S G Potkin; G Alva; W Kalow; F M Macciardi; J L Kennedy Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Aesun Shin; Martha J Shrubsole; Jeffrey M Rice; Qiuyin Cai; Mark A Doll; Jirong Long; Walter E Smalley; Yu Shyr; Rashmi Sinha; Reid M Ness; David W Hein; Wei Zheng Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.254