OBJECTIVE: Responses to therapies, either with regard to toxicities or efficacy, are expected to involve complex relationships of gene products within the same molecular pathway or functional gene set. Therefore, pathways or gene sets, as opposed to single genes, may better reflect the true underlying biology and may be more appropriate units for analysis of pharmacogenomic studies. Application of such methods to pharmacogenomic studies may enable the detection of more subtle effects of multiple genes in the same pathway that may be missed by assessing each gene individually. METHODS: A gene set analysis of 3821 gene sets is presented assessing the association between basal messenger RNA expression and drug cytotoxicity using ethnically defined human lymphoblastoid cell lines for two classes of drugs: pyrimidines [gemcitabine (dFdC) and arabinoside] and purines [6-thioguanine and 6-mercaptopurine]. RESULTS: The gene set nucleoside-diphosphatase activity was found to be significantly associated with both dFdC and arabinoside, whereas gene set γ-aminobutyric acid catabolic process was associated with dFdC and 6-thioguanine. These gene sets were significantly associated with the phenotype even after adjusting for multiple testing. In addition, five associated gene sets were found in common between the pyrimidines and two gene sets for the purines (3',5'-cyclic-AMP phosphodiesterase activity and γ-aminobutyric acid catabolic process) with a P value of less than 0.0001. Functional validation was attempted with four genes each in gene sets for thiopurine and pyrimidine antimetabolites. All four genes selected from the pyrimidine gene sets (PSME3, CANT1, ENTPD6, ADRM1) were validated, but only one (PDE4D) was validated for the thiopurine gene sets. CONCLUSION: In summary, results from the gene set analysis of pyrimidine and purine therapies, used often in the treatment of various cancers, provide novel insight into the relationship between genomic variation and drug response.
OBJECTIVE: Responses to therapies, either with regard to toxicities or efficacy, are expected to involve complex relationships of gene products within the same molecular pathway or functional gene set. Therefore, pathways or gene sets, as opposed to single genes, may better reflect the true underlying biology and may be more appropriate units for analysis of pharmacogenomic studies. Application of such methods to pharmacogenomic studies may enable the detection of more subtle effects of multiple genes in the same pathway that may be missed by assessing each gene individually. METHODS: A gene set analysis of 3821 gene sets is presented assessing the association between basal messenger RNA expression and drug cytotoxicity using ethnically defined human lymphoblastoid cell lines for two classes of drugs: pyrimidines [gemcitabine (dFdC) and arabinoside] and purines [6-thioguanine and 6-mercaptopurine]. RESULTS: The gene set nucleoside-diphosphatase activity was found to be significantly associated with both dFdC and arabinoside, whereas gene set γ-aminobutyric acid catabolic process was associated with dFdC and 6-thioguanine. These gene sets were significantly associated with the phenotype even after adjusting for multiple testing. In addition, five associated gene sets were found in common between the pyrimidines and two gene sets for the purines (3',5'-cyclic-AMP phosphodiesterase activity and γ-aminobutyric acid catabolic process) with a P value of less than 0.0001. Functional validation was attempted with four genes each in gene sets for thiopurine and pyrimidine antimetabolites. All four genes selected from the pyrimidine gene sets (PSME3, CANT1, ENTPD6, ADRM1) were validated, but only one (PDE4D) was validated for the thiopurine gene sets. CONCLUSION: In summary, results from the gene set analysis of pyrimidine and purine therapies, used often in the treatment of various cancers, provide novel insight into the relationship between genomic variation and drug response.
Authors: Richard F Riedel; Alessandro Porrello; Emily Pontzer; Emily J Chenette; David S Hsu; Bala Balakumaran; Anil Potti; Joseph Nevins; Phillip G Febbo Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Fang Li; Brooke L Fridley; Alice Matimba; Krishna R Kalari; Linda Pelleymounter; Irene Moon; Yuan Ji; Gregory D Jenkins; Anthony Batzler; Liewei Wang; Richard M Weinshilboum Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Nikhil G Thaker; Fang Zhang; Peter R McDonald; Tong Ying Shun; Michael D Lewen; Ian F Pollack; John S Lazo Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Colin J D Ross; Hagit Katzov-Eckert; Marie-Pierre Dubé; Beth Brooks; S Rod Rassekh; Amina Barhdadi; Yassamin Feroz-Zada; Henk Visscher; Andrew M K Brown; Michael J Rieder; Paul C Rogers; Michael S Phillips; Bruce C Carleton; Michael R Hayden Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-11-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Liang Li; Brooke L Fridley; Krishna Kalari; Gregory Jenkins; Anthony Batzler; Richard M Weinshilboum; Liewei Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brooke L Fridley; Ryan Abo; Xiang-Lin Tan; Gregory D Jenkins; Anthony Batzler; Ann M Moyer; Joanna M Biernacka; Liewei Wang Journal: OMICS Date: 2013-11-07
Authors: Nour Abdo; Menghang Xia; Chad C Brown; Oksana Kosyk; Ruili Huang; Srilatha Sakamuru; Yi-Hui Zhou; John R Jack; Paul Gallins; Kai Xia; Yun Li; Weihsueh A Chiu; Alison A Motsinger-Reif; Christopher P Austin; Raymond R Tice; Ivan Rusyn; Fred A Wright Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Roxana Daneshjou; Nicholas P Tatonetti; Konrad J Karczewski; Hersh Sagreiya; Stephane Bourgeois; Katarzyna Drozda; James K Burmester; Tatsuhiko Tsunoda; Yusuke Nakamura; Michiaki Kubo; Matthew Tector; Nita A Limdi; Larisa H Cavallari; Minoli Perera; Julie A Johnson; Teri E Klein; Russ B Altman Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.969