ArticleDialogues in clinical neuroscience2004
Genetic variation and pharmacogenomics: concepts, facts, and challenges.
Article in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CD59 gene: 143 haplotypes of 22,718 nucleotides length by computational phasing in 113 individuals from different ethnicities.Transfusion · 2024Article
- Human Cytochrome P450 1, 2, 3 Families as Pharmacogenes with Emphases on Their Antimalarial and Antituberculosis Drugs and Prevalent African Alleles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Strategies to Improve the Clinical Outcomes for Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacogenomic Tests.Genes · 2021Review
- Pharmacogenomic implications of the evolutionary history of infectious diseases in Africa.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2017Review
- Prediction of treatment outcomes in psychiatry--where do we stand ?Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2014Review
- Treatment goals: response and nonresponse.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The analysis of genetic variation in candidate genes is an issue of central importance in pharmacogenomics. The specific approaches taken will have a critical impact on the successful identification of disease genes, the molecular correlates of drug response, and the establishment of meaningful relationships between genetic variants and phenotypes of biomedical and pharmaceutical importance in general. Against a historical background, this article distinguishes different approaches to candidate gene analysis, reflecting different stages in human genome research. Only recently has it become feasible to analyze genetic variation systematically at the ultimate level of resolution, ie, the DNA sequence. In this context, the importance of haplotype-based approaches to candidate gene analysis has at last been recognized; the determination of the specific combinations of variants for each of the two sequences of a gene defined as a haplotype is essential. An up-to-date summary of such maximum resolution data on the amount, nature, and structure of genetic variation in candidate genes will be given. These data demonstrate abundant gene sequence and haplotype diversity. Numerous individually different forms of a gene may exist. This presents major challenges to the analysis of relationships between genetic variation, gene function, and phenotype. First solutions seem within reach. The implications of naturally occurring variation for pharmacogenomics and "personalized" medicine are now evident. Future approaches to the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of drug targets, the optimization of clinical trials, and the development of efficient therapies must be based on in-depth knowledge of candidate gene variation as an essential prerequisite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22033504PMC3181790What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.