alexa
ISSN: 2153-0645
Journal of Pharmacogenomics & Pharmacoproteomics
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Pharmacogenomics Influencing Drug-Gene Interactions Leading Towards Personalized Medicine

Kaiser Jamil*
Head of Genetics Department, Bhagwan Mahavir Medical Research Center, 10-1-1, Mahavir Marg, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana, India
Corresponding Author : Kaiser Jamil
Head of Genetics Department
Bhagwan Mahavir Medical Research Center
10-1-1, Mahavir Marg, Hyderabad-500004
Telangana, India
Tel: 9676872626
E-mail: kj.bmmrc@gmail.com
Received: May 22, 2015 Accepted: September 02, 2015 Published: September 06, 2015
Citation: Jamil K (2015) Pharmacogenomics Influencing Drug-Gene Interactions Leading Towards Personalized Medicine. J Pharmacogenomics Pharmacoproteomics 6:151. doi:10.4172/2153-0645.1000151
Copyright: © 2015 Jamil K. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Pharmacogenomics & Pharmacoproteomics

Keywords
Cancer; Pharmacogenomics; Pharmacogenetics; Microarray; Genomics; Polymorphism; Molecular therapeutics; SNP; biomarkers; adverse drug reactions; drug safety.
Introduction
Recent times have pointed out that the genetic polymorphism in oncogenes influences the chemotherapeutic responses in cancer treatments. We are aware of the fact that every year thousands of deaths are caused by fatal drug reactions; a few potential causes that can be mentioned include- the fact that there are the severity of the disease being treated, drug interactions, nutritional status, renal and liver functions being affected, and also the inherited differences in drug metabolism and genetic polymorphism [1,2]. This may be due to the difference in DNA sequence among individuals, groups, or populations. Genetic polymorphisms may be the result of chance processes, or may have been induced by external agents (such as, xenobiotics / drugs, viruses, environmental exposures or radiation). Sequence variations (mutations) in the genes encoding enzymes and other proteins result from stochastic genetic processes and may accumulate in the population, depending on selective pressures [3]. One of the major causes of interindividual variation of drug effects is due to genetic variation of drug metabolism. Persidis [4] has very appropriately defined: that “pharmacogenomics approach is a redefinition of what a disease is at the molecular level”. This is the reason why the progress in SNP mapping and characterization is also very important, as it will help pinpoint the genomic variations much sooner and enable the clinically relevant correlations to be made more effectively [5-7].
Pirmohamed and Park [8] have reported that clinical observations of inherited differences in drug effects were first documented as early as 1950s [9-12], giving rise to the field of pharmacogenetics, and later pharmacogenomics.
We have studied genetic polymorphisms in several drug metabolizing genes [13-19], and how this information can be used by clinicians for determining drug doses or alternate chemotherapeutics. In the context of chemotherapeutic drugs, we have demonstrated that polymorphisms in genes encoding drug metabolizing enzymes influence and affect the clinical outcome [13,16,17,19]. It was essential to examine the addition factors or parameters such as patients’ demographics such as age, sex, hormones, and behavioral factors such as cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and nutritional status as these also have been found to influence the expression of phase I and II biotransformation genes [13-19]. This data was used to correlate the allele’s verses drug toxicity. The principle behind this is due to the fact that responsible enzymes, commonly referred to as xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes (XMEs) or drug metabolizing enzymes (DMEs), may convert an inactive substance into one which is pharmacologically active. They may however, produce a toxic or even carcinogenic metabolite. Variations in genes coding for drug metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters have not only been shown to be associated with differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs, but also with susceptibility to the neoplasm [20,21]. This emphasizes the importance of genetic polymorphisms, not only in the treatment, but also in the progression of the diseases. Such studies give us the idea that –one drug cannot be a magic wand for all people suffering from similar diagnosis. Thus discovery of Biomarker SNPs has been gained importance.
We may find that the terms Pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics are synonymous for all practical purposes; pharmacogenomics uses genome-wide approaches to elucidate the inherited basis of differences between persons in the response to drugs [22]. Confirming that genetic polymorphisms in disease-modifying or treatment-modifying genes can influence drug response.
In a review by Evans and McLeod [22], it was mentioned that there are more than 30 families of drug-metabolizing enzymes in humans, and essentially all have genetic variants, many of which translate into functional changes in the proteins encoded. So far about 25 genetic variations in drug targets which have a profound effect on drug efficacy are described by various authors [22]. These monogenic traits were discussed by these authors giving instructive examples of a multigenic effect involving the CYP3A family of P-450 enzymes. Hence, it is evident that genetic variation in cellular ion transporters can also have an indirect role in predisposing patients to toxic effects of drugs. For example, patients with variant alleles for sodium or potassium transporters may have substantial morbidity or mortality resulting from drug-induced syndrome [23].
This article outlines a wide spectrum of genes that interact with drug metabolizing enzymes with respect to various chemo-treatments (regimens) of cancer patients by studying and determining their genotypes from the biopsy samples- from our research such as breast cancer, head and neck cancer, hematological malignancies and lung cancer and correlates the mechanism by which these genetic variation influence treatment response [13-19, 24-26]. Further during these investigations we have listed several biomarkers which are very important to determine before treatment.
We have described the SNPs of these genes influencing the targeted pathways of chemotherapeutic agents. As it is a matter of great concern that poor responders to chemotherapeutics leads to poor quality of life (QOL) of the patients, and increases their burden of suffering [24]. In our attempt to answer this question on “why one drug does not suit all” we have gathered relevant information on Pharmacogenomics, and this review is all about knowing the SNP changes or genotyping the tumor samples which will be a great advantage for better diagnosis and for selecting the right therapeutic agent depending on the patient’s tumor profile. Epigenetic changes also contribute to speeding up the tumorigenesis process [27], and there is very little information in this area. Environment and environmental agents play a critical role in promoting carcinogenesis and influencing drug response [28]. It is an attempt to bring out these aspects in this article by refereeing to the Pharmacogenomics research conducted by us for the last seven years. It is now understood that genetic polymorphisms in disease-modifying or treatment-modifying genes can influence drug response and has been documented by several other authors [29-39].
Pharmacogenetics / Pharmacogenomics
It is a fact that pharmacogenetics is becoming an increasingly important field in the study of cancer chemotherapy, since genetic factors could alter drug metabolizing activity and could predict drug toxicity and efficiency. As early as 1892, Sir William Osler made an observation that "If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art." Advances in genetic technologies improve our understanding of disease etiology and those factors influencing response to treatment [5]. Although there has been relatively little progress to date in using genetics to improve the treatment of common diseases, nevertheless there are some encouraging signs of progress in basic research. The efficacy and safety of chemotherapeutic drugs exhibit substantial individual and/or population variability whose explanation can be found by analyzing genetic factors in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [29-32,37,38].
Our research, was to understand genes involved in pharmacogenomics, which seeks to identify the factors that influence responses to therapeutic agents, in cancer patients compared to healthy age matched volunteers using methods such as PCR, RFLP/ SSCP and SNP analysis by Sanger’s sequencing [13-19,40] to identify SNP biomarkers. Genotyping methods are improving so rapidly that it will soon be simple to test for thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in one assay. It may now be possible to collect a single blood sample from a patient, submit a small aliquot for analysis of a panel of genotypes. We have also applied in vitro and bioinformatics techniques to study drug-gene interactions and protein phylogeny and interactions [41-48].
Statistical analysis determined the significance of the results. The role of genes like CYPs, TS, MTHFR, SULT1A1, and DPD in cancers as seen in our studies, represents a test for ADR when the drug is administered and the proportion of people with a negative test who will not have an ADR, respectively [13-19,40]. These are among some of the first reports from India analyzing the association of polymorphisms in several drug metabolizing genes, showing the druggene interactions which are associated with various cancers.
Our findings suggest that using these genotyping technologies to understand the genetic changes that influence the tumor growth at molecular biologic level supervene earlier than histologic changes, and that molecular interventions are an early diagnosis in the process of cancer therapy or cancer progression. This must be seriously considered in long-term survivors of cancer patients, to improve their overall quality of life and to reduce the side effects of drug overdoses.
A patient's genotype needs to be determined only once for any given gene, because except for rare somatic mutations, it does not change. In our opinion, genotyping results will be of greatest clinical value if they are reported and interpreted according to the patient's diagnosis and recommended treatment options. The potential for Pharmacogenomics is enormous as it yields a powerful set of molecular diagnostic methods that will become routine tools with which clinicians will select medications and drug doses for individual patients, setting the trends for personalized medicine.
Acknowledgements
All my PhD students, Oncologists:-Dr. G.Suryanarayana Raju, Dr.D. Raghunatha Rao and Dr. SVS Suresh Atilli.
References
  1. Jamil K (2012) Cancer communications for the development of personalized medicine. Journal of Solid Tumors 2: 1-3.

  2. Agúndez JA, Esguevillas G, Amo G, García-Martín E (2014) Clinical practice guidelines for translating pharmacogenomic knowledge to bedside. Focus on anticancer drugs. Front Pharmacol 5:188.

  3. Kelada SN, Eaton DL, Wang SS, Rothman NR, Khoury MJ (2004). Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease.

  4. Persidis A (2000) Pharmacogenomics. Nature Biotechnol 18: IT40–IT42.

  5. Roses AD (2000) Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 405: 857-865.

  6. Wolf CR, Smith G, Smith RL (2000) Science, medicine, and the future: Pharmacogenetics. BMJ 320: 987-990.

  7. Meyer UA (2000) Pharmacogenetics and adverse drug reactions. Lancet 356: 1667-1671.

  8. Pirmohamed M, Park BK (2001) Genetic susceptibility to adverse drug reactions. Trends PharmacolSci 22: 298-305.

  9. Hughes HB, Biehl JP, Jones AP, Schmidt LH (1954) Metabolism of isoniazid in man as related to the occurrence of peripheral neuritis. Am Rev Tuberc 70: 266-273.

  10. Kalow W (1956) Familial incidence of low pseudocholinesterase level. Lancet 2: 576-576.

  11. Alving AS, Carson PE, Flanagancl, Ickes CE (1956) Enzymatic deficiency in primaquine-sensitive erythrocytes. Science 124: 484-485.

  12. Evans DA, Manley KA, Mckusick VA (1960) Genetic control of isoniazid metabolism in man. Br Med J 2: 485-491.

  13. Suman G, Jamil K (2006) Novel CYP3A4 gene polymorphisms in post chemo breast cancer patients. International Journal of Cancer Research 2: 358-366.

  14. Suman G, Jamil K (2006) Studies on Combination Vs Single Anti-Cancer Drugs In vitro. Perspectives in Cytology and Genetics 12: 185-195.

  15. Kumar K, Jamil K (2006) Methylenetetrahydrofolatereductase (MTHFR) C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and breast cancer in South Indian population. International Journal of Cancer Research 2: 143 -151.

  16. Kumar Ch K, Murthy S, Jamil K (2007) Possible Association of Splice Site Mutation of Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (IVS14+1G>A) in Adverse Drug Reactions in Some Invasive Ductal carcinoma Patients. International Journal of Pharmacology 3: 130- 136.

  17. Khan S, Jamil K, Das P, VamsyCh M, Murthy S (2007) Polymorphic sites (1236 and 3435) in mdr1 gene influencing drug response in breast cancer patients. International Journal of Pharmacology 3: 453-460.

  18. Khan S, Jamil K (2009) Linkage disequilibrium analysis determines the association of the haplotypes of MDR1 with IDC breast cancer. International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology 1: 105-114.

  19. Kumar K, Vamsy M, Jamil K (2010) Thymidylate synthase gene polymorphisms effecting 5-FU response in breast cancer patients. Cancer Biomark 6: 83-93.

  20. Nebert DW (1999) Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: why is this relevant to the clinical geneticist? Clin Genet 56: 247-258.

  21. Evans WE, Relling MV (1999) Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. Science 286: 487-491.

  22. Evans WE, McLeod HL (2003) Pharmacogenomics-drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 348: 538-549.

  23. Abbott GW, Sesti F, Splawski I, Buck ME, Lehmann MH, et al. (1999) MiRP1 forms IKr potassium channels with HERG and is associated with cardiac arrhythmia. Cell 97: 175-187.

  24. Jamil K, Kumar K, Fatima SH, Rabbani S, Kumar R, et al. (2009) Clinical Studies on Hormonal Status in Breast Cancer and its Impact on Quality of Life (QOL). J Cancer SciTher 1: 83-89

  25. Natukula K, Jamil K, Pingali UR, Attili VS, Madireddy UR (2013) The codon 399 Arg/Gln XRCC1 polymorphism is associated with lung cancer in Indians. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14: 5275-5279.

  26. Nagalakshmi K, Jamil K, Pingali U, Reddy MV, Attili SS (2014) Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as biomarker for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). 19: 198-206.

  27. Dolinoy DC, Weidman JR, Jirtle RL (2007) Epigenetic gene regulation: linking early developmental environment to adult disease. ReprodToxicol 23: 297-307.

  28. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, Falcioni L, Bua L (2008) Consequences of exposure to carcinogens beginning during developmental life. Basic ClinPharmacolToxicol 102: 118-124.

  29. Quiñones L, Rosero M, Roco A, Moreno I, Varela F, et al. (2008) Role of Cytochrome P450 enzymes in the metabolism of antineoplasic drugs: present situation and future perspectives. Rev Med Chile 136: 1327–1335.

  30. Roco A, Quiñones L, Agúndez JA, García-Martín E, Squicciarini V, et al. (2012) Frequencies of 23 functionally significant variant alleles related with metabolism of antineoplastic drugs in the chilean population: comparison with caucasian and asian populations. Front Genet 3: 229.

  31. Izar B, Rotow J, Gainor J, Clark J, Chabner B (2013) Pharmacokinetics, clinical indications, and resistance mechanisms in molecular targeted therapies in cancer. Pharmacol Rev 65: 1351-1395.

  32. Kessler DA, Austin RH, Levine H (2014) Resistance to chemotherapy: patient variability and cellular heterogeneity. Cancer Res 74: 4663-4670.

  33. Bruhn O, Cascorbi I (2014) Polymorphisms of the drug transporters ABCB1, ABCG2, ABCC2 and ABCC3 and their impact on drug bioavailability and clinical relevance. Expert Opin Drug MetabToxicol 10: 1337-1354.

  34. Ishikawa T (2014) Genetic polymorphism in the NRF2 gene as a prognosis marker for cancer chemotherapy. Front Genet 5: 383.

  35. Roco A, Cayún J2, Contreras S2, Stojanova J2, Quiñones L2 (2014) Can pharmacogenetics explain efficacy and safety of cisplatin pharmacotherapy? Front Genet 5: 391.

  36. Binkhorst L, Mathijssen RH, Jager A, van Gelder T (2015) Individualization of tamoxifen therapy: much more than just CYP2D6 genotyping. Cancer Treat Rev 41: 289-299.

  37. Patel JN (2015) Cancer pharmacogenomics: implications on ethnic diversity and drug response. Pharmacogenet Genomics 25: 223-230.

  38. Unger FT, Witte I, David KA (2015) Prediction of individual response to anticancer therapy: historical and future perspectives. Cell Mol Life Sci 72: 729-757.

  39. Zhou ZW, Chen XW, Sneed KB, Yang YX, Zhang X, et al. (2015) Clinical association between pharmacogenomics and adverse drug reactions. Drugs 75: 589-631.

  40. Kumar Ch K, Kandula M, Bhavani V, Laxmi A, Reddy NM, Jamil K (2013) Sulfotransferase 1A1 (SULT1A1) Polymorphism and Breast Cancer Risk: a Case control Study in South India. American Journals of Cancer Science 2: 2-8.

  41. Ahmed M, Jamil K (2011) Cytotoxicity of neoplastic drugs Gefitinib, Cisplatin, 5-FU, Gemcitabine, and Vinorelbine on human cervical cancer cells (HeLa). Biology and Medicine 3: 60-71.

  42. Jamil K, Mustafa SM (2012) Thioredoxin system: a model for determining novel lead molecules for breast cancer chemotherapy. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol 4: 121-130.

  43. Ahmed M, Rayalu DJ, Jamil K (2012) Molecular docking studies targeting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) involved in cancer. International Journal of Pharmaceutical sciences and Healthcare 4: 76- 85.

  44. Ahmed M, Jamil K (2012) BCL-2 as Target for Molecular Docking of Some Neoplastic Drugs. Open Access Scientific Reports 1:458.

  45. Ahmed M, Jamil K (2013) Induction of Apoptosis through Cox-2 and Bcl-2 activation by Gefitinib, Cisplatin and 5-FU in HeLa cells. International journal of Biotechnology and Bioengineering Research 4: 47-62.

  46. Jayaraman A, Jamil K (2012) Clusters of CDK2,CCND1, and CMYC genes involved in cancers: Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) as a model. Biology and Medicine 4: 37-50.

  47. Jamil K, Jayaraman A, Rao R, Raju S (2012) In silico evidence of signaling pathways of notch mediated networks in leukemia. ComputStructBiotechnol J 1: e201207005.

  48. Subhani S, Jamil K (2015) Molecular docking of chemotherapeutic agents to CYP3A4 in non-small cell lung cancer. Biomed Pharmacother 73: 65-74.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11353
  • [From(publication date):
    September-2015 - Dec 05, 2016]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7603
  • PDF downloads :3750
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

OMICS International Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
 
 
OMICS International Conferences 2016-17
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings
 
 

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2016 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version