Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T11:22:42.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Pharmacogenomics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2023

By
Alison Motsinger-Reif
Edited by
Xiuzhen Huang ,
Jason H. Moore  and
Yu Zhang
Xiuzhen Huang
Affiliation:
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
Jason H. Moore
Affiliation:
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
Yu Zhang
Affiliation:
Trinity University, Texas
Get access

Summary

Pharmacogenomics is the study of genetic factors that influence drug response. Pharmacogenomics combines pharmacology and genomics to identify genetic predictors of variability in drug response that can be used to maximize drug efficacy while minimizing drug toxicity in order to tailor drug therapy for patients, thus improving patient care and reducing healthcare costs. In this chapter we review the field of pharmacogenomics in its current state and clinical practice. Recent research, methods, and resources for pharmacogenomics are reviewed in detail. We discuss the advantages and challenges in pharmacogenomic studies. We elaborate on the barriers to clinical translation of pharmacogenetic discoveries and the efforts of various institutions and consortia to mitigate these barriers. We also discuss applications and clinical translation of pharmacogenomic research moving forward, along with social, ethical, and economic issues that require attention. We conclude by previewing the use of big data, multi-omics data, advanced computing technology, and statistical methods by scientists across disciplinary boundaries along with the efforts of government organizations, clinicians, and patients that could lead to successful and clinically translatable pharmacogenomic discoveries, ushering in an era of precision medicine.

Keywords

pharmacogenomicpharmacogeneticpharmacogenomic biomarkerdrug responseadverse drug reaction (ADR)drug absorptiondistributionmetabolismexcretion and toxicity (ADMET)pharmacokineticspharmacodynamicsclinical translationprecision medicine
Type
Chapter
Information
Integrative Bioinformatics for Biomedical Big Data
A No-Boundary Thinking Approach
 , pp. 87 - 134
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1000 Genomes Project Consortium, 2015. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature, 526(7571):68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H, 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control, 19:716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashburner, M, Ball, CA, Blake, CA, et al., 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet, 25(1):25–29.Google Scholar
Bachtiar, M, Lee, CGL, 2013. Genetics of population differences in drug response. Curr Genet Med Rep, 1(3):162–170.Google Scholar
Bansal, M, Yang, J, Karan, C, et al., 2014. A community computational challenge to predict the activity of pairs of compounds. Nat Biotechnol, 32(12):1213–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beger, RD, Dunn, W, Schmidt, M, et al., 2016. Metabolomics enables precision medicine: a white paper, community perspective. Metabolomics, 12(9):149.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y, Hochberg, Y, 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Soc B, 57(1):289–300.Google Scholar
Bielinski, SJ, Olson, M, Pathak, JE, et al., 2014. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right. Mayo Clin Proc, 89(1):.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, CC, Havener, TM, Medina, MW, et al., 2012a. A genome-wide association analysis of temozolomide response using lymphoblastoid cell lines shows a clinically relevant association with MGMT. Pharmacogenet Genomics, 22(11):796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, CC, Havener, TM, Medina, MW, et al., 2012b. Multivariate methods and software for association mapping in dose–response genome-wide association studies. BioData Min, 5(1):21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, CC, Havener, TM, Medina, MW, et al., 2014. Genome-wide association and pharmacological profiling of 29 anticancer agents using lymphoblastoid cell lines. Pharmagenomics, 15(2):137–146.Google Scholar
Burdett, T, et al., 2017 The NHGRI-EBI catalog of published genome-wide association studies. www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas.Google Scholar
Burmester, JK, Sedova, M, Shapero, MH, Mansfield, E, 2010. DMETTM microarray technology for pharmacogenomics-based personalized medicine. Methods Mol Biol (Clifton NJ), 632:99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, CI, 1939. The toxicity of poisons applied jointly. Ann Appl Biol, 26(3):585–615.Google Scholar
Cantor, RM, Lange, K, Sinsheimer, JS, 2010. Prioritizing GWAS results: a review of statistical methods and recommendations for their application. Am J Hum Genet, 86(1):6–22.Google Scholar
Caraco, Y, Blotnick, S, Muszkat, M, 2008. CYP2C9 genotype-guided warfarin prescribing enhances the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 83(3):460–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, DF, Alfirevic, A, Pirmohamed, M, 2014. Pharmacogenomics: current state-of-the-art. Genes (Basel), 5(2):430–443.Google Scholar
Caudle, KE, Klein, TE, Hoffman, JM, et al., 2014. Incorporation of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice: the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline development process. Curr Drug Metab, 15(2):209–217.Google Scholar
Che, R, Jack, JR, Motsinger-Reif, AA, Brown, CC, 2014. An adaptive permutation approach for genome-wide association study: evaluation and recommendations for use. BioData Min, 7:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, D, Liu, X, Yang, Y, Yang, H, Lu, P, 2015. Systematic synergy modeling: understanding drug synergy from a systems biology perspective. BMC Syst Biol, 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, P, Lin, JL, Lu, CS, et al., 2011. Carbamazepine-induced toxic effects and HLA-B*1502 screening in Taiwan. N Engl J Med, 364(12):1126–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, S, Sutiman, N, Chowbay, B, 2016. Pharmacogenetics of drug transporters in modulating imatinib disposition and treatment outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients. Pharmacogenomics, 17(17):1941–1955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chou, TC, 2010. Drug combination studies and their synergy quantification using the Chou-Talalay method. Cancer Res, 70(2):440–446.Google Scholar
Choy, E, Yelensky, R, Bonakdar, S, et al., 2008. Genetic analysis of human traits in vitro: drug response and gene expression in lymphoblastoid cell lines. PLoS Genet, 4(11):e1000287.Google Scholar
Cohen, J, Wilson, A, Manzolillo, K, 2013. Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics J, 1363(10):378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, NJ, Gamazon, ER, Wheeler, HE, Dolan, ME, 2012. Clinical translation of cell-based pharmacogenomic discovery. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 92(4):425–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, DC, Crosslin, DR, Tromp, G, et al., 2014. EMERGEing progress in genomics-the first seven years. Front Genet, 5:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlin, A, Denny, J, Roden, DM, et al., 2015. CMTR1 is associated with increased asthma exacerbations in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. Immunity Inflamm Dis, 3(4):350–359.Google Scholar
Dausset, J, Cann, H, Cohen, D, et al., 1990. Centre d’etude du polymorphisme humain (CEPH): collaborative genetic mapping of the human genome. Genomics, 6(3):575–577.Google Scholar
Delaney, JT, Ramirez, EB, Pulley, JM, et al., 2012. Predicting clopidogrel response using DNA samples linked to an electronic health record. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 91(2):257–263.Google Scholar
Denny, JC, Ritchie, MD, Basford, MA, et al., 2010. PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene-disease associations. Bioinformatics, 26(9):1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denny, JC, Crawford, DC, Ritchie, MD, et al., 2011. Variants near FOXE1 are associated with hypothyroidism and other thyroid conditions: using electronic medical records for genome- and phenome-wide studies. Am J Hum Genet, 89(4):529–542.Google Scholar
Denny, JC, Bastarache, L, Ritychie, M, et al., 2013. Systematic comparison of phenome-wide association study of electronic medical record data and genome-wide association study data. Nat Biotechnol, 31(12):1102–1111.Google Scholar
Di Veroli, GY, Fornari, C, Wang, D, et al., 2016. Combenefit: an interactive platform for the analysis and visualization of drug combinations. Bioinformatics, 32(18):2866–2868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druker, BJ, Talpaz, M, Resta, DJ, et al., 2001. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med, 344(14):1031–1037.Google Scholar
Dunnenberger, HM, Crews, KR, Hoffman, JM, et al., 2015. Preemptive clinical pharmacogenetics implementation: current programs in five US medical centers. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol, 55:89–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, RS, Moyer, TP, Aubert, RE, et al., 2010. Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates results from the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness Study). JAC, 55:2804–2812.Google Scholar
Farrugia, G, Weinshilboum, RM, 2013. Challenges in implementing genomic medicine: the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 94(2):204–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenaux, P, Mufti, GJ, Hellstrom-Lindberg, E, et al., 2009. Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study. Lancet Oncol, 10:223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacomini, KM, Yee, SW, Mushiroda, T, et al., 2016. Genome-wide association studies of drug response and toxicity: an opportunity for genome medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 16.Google Scholar
Goldstein, RL, Yang, SN, Taldone, T, et al., 2015. Pharmacoproteomics identifies combinatorial therapy targets for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. J Clin Invest, 125(12):4559–4571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, RC, Berg, JS, Grody, WW, et al., 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med, 15(7):565–574.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, AE, Collins, FS, Clayton, EW, 2003. Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med, 349(6):562–569.Google Scholar
Han, B, Kang, HM, Eskin, E, 2009. Rapid and accurate multiple testing correction and power estimation for millions of correlated markers. PLoS Genet, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000456.Google Scholar
Harper, AR, Topol, EJ, 2012. Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice and drug development. Nat Biotechnol, 30(11):1117–1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetherington, S, Hughes, AR, Mosteller, M, et al., 2002. Genetic variations in HLA-B region and hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir. Lancet, 359(9312):1121–1122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, RS, Duan, S, Bleibel, W, et al., 2007. A genome-wide approach to identify genetic variants that contribute to etoposide-induced cytotoxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104(23):9758–9763.Google Scholar
Ichihara, A, Wang, Z, Jinnin, M, et al., 2014. Upregulation of miR-18a-5p contributes to epidermal necrolysis in severe drug eruptions. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 133:1065–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illumina, 2017. VeraCode ADME Core Panel. www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/datasheets/datasheet_veracode_adme_core_panel.pdf.Google Scholar
International HapMap Consortium, 2003. The International HapMap Project. Nature, 426(6968):789–796.Google Scholar
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822):860–921.Google Scholar
International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium, 2009. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N Engl J Med, 360(8):753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, JPA, Ntzani, EE, Trikalinos, TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis, DG, 2001. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet, 29(3):306–309.Google Scholar
Jack, J, Rotroff, D, Motsinger-Reif, AA, 2014. Cell lines models of drug response: successes and lessons from this pharmacogenomic model. Curr Mol Med, 14(7):833–840.Google Scholar
Jain, K, 2004. Role of pharmacoproteomics in the development of personalized medicine. Pharmacogenomics, 5(3):331–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, JA, Caudle, KE, Gong, L, et al., 2017. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing: 2017 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 102:397–404.Google Scholar
Johnson, RC, Caudle, KE, Gong, L, et al., 2010. Accounting for multiple comparisons in a genome-wide association study (GWAS). BMC Genomics, 11(1):724.Google Scholar
Jones, PA, Issa, J-PJ, Baylin, S, 2016. Targeting the cancer epigenome for therapy. Nat Rev Genet, 17(10):630–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaddurah-Daouk, R, Weinshilboum, RM, 2014. Pharmacometabolomics: implications for clinical pharmacology and systems pharmacology. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 95(2):154–167.Google Scholar
Kaddurah-Daouk, R, Weinshilboum, R, Pharmacometabolomics Research Network, 2015. Metabolomic signatures for drug response phenotypes: pharmacometabolomics enables precision medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 98(1):71–75.Google Scholar
Kahn, SD, 2011. On the future of genomic data. Science, 331(6018):728–729.Google Scholar
Kanehisa, M, Goto, S, 2000. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res, 28(1):27–30.Google Scholar
Khatri, P, Sirota, M, Butte, AJ, Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLoS Comput Biol, 8(2):e1002375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002375.Google Scholar
Kocarnik, JM, Fullerton, SM, 2014. Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. JAMA, 311(8):795–796.Google Scholar
Kontopantelis, E, Reeves, D, 2010. Metaan: random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J, 10(3):395–407.Google Scholar
Kraft, P, Cox, DG, 2008. Study designs for genome‐wide association studies. Adv Genet, 60:465–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krumsiek, J, Suhre, K, Evans, AM, et al., 2012. Mining the unknown: a systems approach to metabolite identification combining genetic and metabolic information. PLoS Genet, 8(10):e1003005.Google Scholar
Kulynych, J, Greely, HT, 2017. Clinical genomics, big data, and electronic medical records: reconciling patient rights with research when privacy and science collide. J Law Biosci, 15:94–132.Google Scholar
Laurie, CC, Doheny, KF, Mirel, DB, et al., 2010. Quality control and quality assurance in genotypic data for genome-wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol, 34(6):591–602.Google Scholar
Leckband, SG, Kelsoe, JR, Dunnenberger, HM, et al., 2013. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for HLA-B genotype and carbamazepine dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 94(3):324–328.Google Scholar
Levy, KD, Decker, BS, Carpenter, JS, et al., 2014. Prerequisites to implementing a pharmacogenomics program in a large health-care system. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 96(3):307–309.Google Scholar
Li, M-X, Yeung, JMY, Cherny, SS, Sham, PC, 2012. Evaluating the effective numbers of independent tests and significant p-value thresholds in commercial genotyping arrays and public imputation reference datasets. Hum Genet, 131(5):747–756.Google Scholar
Loewe, S, 1953. The problem of synergism and antagonism of combined drugs. Arzneimittelforschung, 3(6):285–290.Google ScholarPubMed
Lopez, JP, Lim, R, Cruceanu, C, et al., 2014. miR-1202 is a primate-specific and brain-enriched microRNA involved in major depression and antidepressant treatment. Nat Med, 20(7):764–768.Google Scholar
Low, S-K, Chung, S, Takahashi, A, et al., 2013. Genome-wide association study of chemotherapeutic agent-induced severe neutropenia/leucopenia for patients in Biobank Japan. Cancer Sci, 104(8):1074–1082.Google Scholar
Lübbert, M, Suciu, S, Hagemeijer, A, et al., 2016. Decitabine improves progression-free survival in older high-risk MDS patients with multiple autosomal monosomies: results of a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase III study 06011 of the EORTC Leukemia Cooperative Group and German MDS Study Group. Ann Hematol, 95(2):191–199.Google Scholar
Luk, JM, Burchard, J, Zhang, C, et al., 2011. DLK1-DIO3 genomic imprinted microRNA cluster at 14q32.2 defines a stemlike subtype of hepatocellular carcinoma associated with poor survival. J Biol Chem, 286(35):30706–30713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, TJ, Bell, D, Sordella, R, et al., 2004. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med, 350(21):2129–2139.Google Scholar
Manolio, TA, Chisholm, RL, Ozenberger, B, et al., 2013. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med, 15(4):258–267.Google Scholar
Martin, MA, Hoffman, JM, Freimuth, RR, et al., 2014. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guidelines for HLA-B genotype and abacavir dosing: 2014 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 95(5):499–500.Google Scholar
Marty, M, Cognetti, D, Maraninci, D, et al., 2005. Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment: the M77001 study group. J Clin Oncol, 23(19):4265–4274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, AD, Kennedy, JL, Middleton, LT, 2005. Pharmacogenetics in drug development. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 360(1460):1579–1588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarty, CA, Chisholm, RL, Chute, CG, et al., 2011. The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med Genomics, 4(1):13.Google Scholar
Mega, JL, Close, SL, Wiviott, SD, et al., 2009. Cytochrome P-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med, 360:354–362.Google Scholar
Merico, D, Gfeller, D, Bader, GD, 2009. How to visually interpret biological data using networks. Nat Biotechnol, 27(10):921–924.Google Scholar
Meta-Analysis, 2017. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA). www.meta-analysis.com.Google Scholar
Monte, AA, Heard, KJ, Campbell, J, et al., 2014. The effect of CYP2D6 drug–drug interactions on hydrocodone effectiveness. Acad Emerg Med, 21(8):879–885.Google Scholar
Moore, CB, Verma, A, Pendergrass, S, et al., 2015. Phenome-wide association study relating pretreatment laboratory parameters with human genetic variants in AIDS clinical trials group protocols. Open Forum Infect Dis, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofu113.Google Scholar
Moore, JH, 2003. The ubiquitous nature of epistasis in determining susceptibility to common human diseases. Hum Hered, 56:73–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motsinger, AA, Ritchie, MD, Reif, DM, 2007. Novel methods for detecting epistasis in pharmacogenomics studies. Pharmacogenomics, 8(9):1229–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motsinger, AA, Dudek, SM, Hahn, LW, Ritchie, MD, 2006. Comparison of Neural Network Optimization Approaches for Studies of Human Genetics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Motsinger-Reif, AA, Jorgenson, E, Relling, MV, et al., 2013. Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenomics: successes and lessons. Pharmacogenet Genomics, 23(8):383–394.Google Scholar
Neavin, D, Kaddurah-Daouk, R, Weinshilboum, R, 2016. Pharmacometabolomics informs pharmacogenomics. Metabolomics, 12(7):1–6.Google Scholar
Nebert, DW, 1999. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: why is this relevant to the clinical geneticist? Clin Genet, 56(4):247–258.Google Scholar
Neuraz, A, Chouchana, L, Malamut, G, et al., 2013. Phenome-wide association studies on a quantitative trait: application to TPMT enzyme activity and thiopurine therapy in pharmacogenomics. PLoS Comput Biol, 9(12):e1003405.Google Scholar
Nicolae, DL, Gamazon, E, Zhang, W, et al., 2010. Trait-associated SNPs are more likely to be eQTLs: annotation to enhance discovery from GWAS. PLoS Genet, 6(4):e1000888.Google Scholar
Noble, WS, 2009. How does multiple testing correction work? Nat Biotechnol, 27(12):1135–1137.Google Scholar
Pao, W, Miller, V, Zakowski, M, et al., 2004. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from and “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101(36):13306–13311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pao, W, Miller, VA, Politi, KA, et al., 2005. Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med, 2(3):e73.Google Scholar
Patnala, R, Clements, J, Batra, J, 2013. Candidate gene association studies: a comprehensive guide to useful in silico tools. BMC Genet, 14(1):39.Google Scholar
Peters, EJ, Motsinger-Reif, A, Havener, TM, et al., 2011. Pharmacogenomic characterization of US FDA-approved cytotoxic drugs. Pharmacogenomics, 12(10):1407–1415.Google Scholar
Petersen, KE, Prows, CA, Martin, LJ, Maglo, KN, 2014. Personalized medicine, availability, and group disparity: an inquiry into how physicians perceive and rate the elements and barriers of personalized medicine. Public Health Genomics, 17(4):209–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pharmacogenomics at work, 1998. Pharmacogenomics at work. Nat Biotechnol, 16(10):885.Google Scholar
Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB), 2017a. Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base. Drug Labels. www.pharmgkb.org/view/drug-labels.do.Google Scholar
Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB) 2017b. Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base. Dosing Guidelines. www.pharmgkb.org/view/dosing-guidelines.do.Google Scholar
Pharmacogenomics Research Network (PGRN), 2017. PGRN HUB. www.pgrn.org.Google Scholar
PMI Working Group, 2015. The Precision Medicine Initiative cohort program: building a research foundation for 21st century medicine. Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group Report to Advisory Committee to the Director of the NIH.Google Scholar
Pratt, D, Chen, J, Welker, D, et al., 2015. NDEx, the network data exchange. Cell Syst, 1:302–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, S, Neale, B, Todd-Brown, K, et al., 2007. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet, 81(3):559–575.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team, 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rasmussen-Torvik, LJ, Stallings, SC, Gordon, AS, et al., 2014. Design and anticipated outcomes of the eMERGE-PGx project: a multicenter pilot for preemptive pharmacogenomics in electronic health record systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 96(4):482–489.Google Scholar
Relling, MV, Klein, TE, 2011. CPIC: Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium of the Pharmacogenomics Research Network. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 89(3):464–467.Google Scholar
Relling, MV, Evans, WE, 2015. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature, 526(7573):343–350.Google Scholar
Ringnér, M, Ringner, M, 2008. What is principal component analysis? Nat Biotechnol, 26(3):303–304.Google Scholar
Ritchie, MD, Motsinger, AA, 2005. Multifactor dimensionality reduction for detecting gene–gene and gene–environment interactions in pharmacogenomics studies. Pharmacogenomics, 6(5):823–834.Google Scholar
Ritchie, MD, 2012. The success of pharmacogenomics in moving genetic association studies from bench to bedside: study design and implementation of precision medicine in the post-GWAS era. Human Genetics, 131(10):1615–1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, MD, White, BC, Parker, JS, Hahn, LW, Moore, JH, 2003. Optimization of neural network architecture using genetic programming improves detection and modeling of gene–gene interactions in studies of human diseases. BMC Bioinformatics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-4-28.Google Scholar
Roden, D, Pulley, JM, Basford, MA, et al., 2008. Development of a large-scale de-Identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 84(3):362–369.Google Scholar
Sadee, W, 2012. The relevance of “missing heritability” in pharmacogenomics. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 92(4):428–430.Google Scholar
SAS, 2017. SAS 9.4 software. www.sas.com/en_us/software/sas9.html#94-c-to-a.Google Scholar
Schildcrout, JS, Denny, JC, Bowton, E, et al., 2012. Optimizing drug outcomes through pharmacogenetics: a case for preemptive genotyping. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 92(2):235–242.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G, 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat, 62:461–464.Google Scholar
Scott, SA, Sangkuhl, K, Stein, CM, et al., 2013. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guidelines for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy: 2013 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 94(3):317–323.Google Scholar
Shahin, MH, Gong, Y, McDonough, CW, et al., 2016. A genetic response score for hydrochlorothiazide use. Hypertension, 68(3):621–629.Google Scholar
Shuldiner, AR, Relling, MV, Peterson, JF, et al., 2013. The Pharmacogenomics Research Network Translational Pharmacogenetics Program: overcoming challenges of real-world implementation. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 94(2):207–210.Google Scholar
Stanek, EJ, Sanders, CL, Taber, KAJ, et al., 2012. Adoption of pharmacogenomic testing by US physicians: results of a nationwide survey. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 91(3):450–458.Google Scholar
Starkey Lewis, PJ, Dear, J, Platt, V, et al., 2011. Circulating microRNAs as potential markers of human drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology, 54(5):1767–1776.Google Scholar
Stolberg, HO, Norman, G, Trop, I, 2004. Randomized controlled trials. Am J Roentgenol, 183(6):1539–1544.Google Scholar
Subramanian, A, Tamayo, P, Mootha, VK, et al., 2005. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 102(43):15545–15550.Google Scholar
Synapse, 2015. AstraZeneca-Sanger Drug Combination Prediction DREAM Challenge – syn4231880. www.synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn4231880/wiki/235645.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, F, McGinnis, R, Bourgeois, S, et al., 2009. A genome-wide association study confirms VKORC1, CYP2C9, and CYP4F2 as principal genetic determinants of warfarin dose. PLoS Genet, 5(3):e1000433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US EEOC, 2017. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm.Google Scholar
US FDA, 2017. Table of pharmacogenomic biomarkers in drug labeling. www.fda.gov/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/Pharmacogenetics/ucm083378.htm.Google Scholar
Valleron, W, Laprevotte, E, Gautier, EF, et al., 2012. Specific small nucleolar RNA expression profiles in acute leukemia. Leukemia, 26(10). https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.111.Google Scholar
Vogel, CL, Franco, SX, 2003. Clinical experience with trastuzumab (herceptin). Breast J, 9( 6): 452–462.Google Scholar
Vogel, CL, Cobleigh, MA, Tripathy, D, et al., 2002. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 20(3):719–726.Google Scholar
Vogel, F, 1959. Moderne Probleme der Humangenetik. In Ergebnisse der Inneren Medizin und Kinderheilkunde, Berlin: Springer, pp. 52–125.Google Scholar
Wang, L, 2010. Pharmacogenomics: a systems approach. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med, 2(1):3–22.Google Scholar
Watson, VG, Motsinger-Reif, A, Hardison, NE, et al., 2011. Identification and replication of loci involved in camptothecin-induced cytotoxicity using CEPH pedigrees. PLoS One, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017561.Google Scholar
Weigelt, B, Reis-Filho, JS, 2014. Epistatic interactions and drug response. J Pathol, 232(2):255–263.Google Scholar
Welsh, M, Mangravite, L, Medina, MA, et al., 2009. Pharmacogenomic discovery using cell-based models. Pharmacol Rev, 61(4):413–429.Google Scholar
Wheeler, HE, Dolan, ME, 2012. Lymphoblastoid cell lines in pharmacogenomic discovery and clinical translation. Pharmacogenomics, 13(1):55–70.Google Scholar
Wheeler, HE, Gamazon, ER, Stark, AL, et al., 2013. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies variants associated with platinating agent susceptibility across populations. Pharmacogenomics J, 13(1):35–43.Google Scholar
Whirl-Carrillo, M, McDonagh, EM, Hebert, JM, et al., 2012. Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 92(4):414–417.Google Scholar
Wilke, RA, Berg, RL, Peissig, P, et al., 2007. Use of an electronic medical record for the identification of research subjects with diabetes mellitus. Clin Med Res, 5(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willer, CJ, Li, Y, Abecasis, GR, 2010. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics, 26(17):2190–2191.Google Scholar
Xu, G, Yang, F, Ding, CL, et al., 2014. Small nucleolar RNA 113-1 suppresses tumorigenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Cancer, 13(1):216.Google Scholar
Yee, SW, Momozawa, Y, Kamatani, Y, et al., 2016. Genomewide association studies in pharmacogenomics: meeting report of the NIH Pharmacogenomics Research Network-RIKEN (PGRN-RIKEN) collaboration. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 100(5):423–426.Google Scholar
Yeh, PJ, Hegreness, MJ, Aiden, AP, Kishony, R, 2009. Drug interactions and the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol, 7(6):460–466.Google Scholar
Yesupriya, A, Yu, W, Clyne, M, Gwinn, M, Khoury, MJ, 2008. The continued need to synthesize the results of genetic associations across multiple studies. Genet Med, 10(8):633–635.Google Scholar
Ziliak, D, O’Donnell, P, Im, HK, et al., 2011. Germline polymorphisms discovered via a cell-based, genome-wide approach predict platinum response in head and neck cancers. Transl Res, 157(5):265–272.Google Scholar
Zuvich, RL, Armstrong, LL, Bielinksi, SJ, et al., 2011. Pitfalls of merging GWAS data: lessons learned in the eMERGE network and quality control procedures to maintain high data quality. Genet Epidemiol, 35(8):887–898.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×