Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35134542›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2022

CYP2C8, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19 Characterization Using Next-Generation Sequencing and Haplotype Analysis: A GeT-RM Collaborative Project.

Andrea Gaedigk, Erin C Boone, Steven E Scherer, Seung-Been Lee, Ibrahim Numanagić, Cenk Sahinalp, Joshua D Smith, Sean McGee, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Xiang Qin and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. PharmVar GeneFocus: CYP4F2.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Andrea GaedigkDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Innovation, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri; University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri.
Erin C BooneDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Innovation, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Steven E SchererHuman Genome Sequencing Center, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Seung-Been LeePrecision Medicine Institute, Macrogen Inc., Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Ibrahim NumanagićDepartment of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Cenk SahinalpCancer Data Science Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Joshua D SmithDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Sean McGeeDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Aparna RadhakrishnanDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Xiang QinHuman Genome Sequencing Center, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Wendy Y WangDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Innovation, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Emily G FarrowUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri; Center for Genomic Medicine, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Nina GonzaludoMedical Genomics Research, Illumina Inc., San Diego, California.
Aaron L HalpernMedical Genomics Research, Illumina Inc., San Diego, California.
Deborah A NickersonDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Neil A MillerUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri; Center for Genomic Medicine, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri.
Victoria M PrattDepartment of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Lisa V KalmanInformatics and Data Science Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: LKalman@cdc.gov.

Funding

Implementing genomic medicine through pragmatic trials in diverse and underserved populations across Indiana.U01HG010245 · NHGRI · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DEXTER, PAUL, SKAAR, TODD C. · 2018 to 2024
$9.4M
Tumor evolution and intratumor heterogeneityZIABC011987 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI SAHINALP, SULEYMAN · 2020 to 2025
$6.6M
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG010245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacogenetic tests typically target selected sequence variants to identify haplotypes that are often defined by star (∗) allele nomenclature. Due to their design, these targeted genotyping assays are unable to detect novel variants that may change the function of the gene product and thereby affect phenotype prediction and patient care. In the current study, 137 DNA samples that were previously characterized by the Genetic Testing Reference Material (GeT-RM) program using a variety of targeted genotyping methods were recharacterized using targeted and whole genome sequencing analysis. Sequence data were analyzed using three genotype calling tools to identify star allele diplotypes for CYP2C8, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. The genotype calls from next-generation sequencing (NGS) correlated well to those previously reported, except when novel alleles were present in a sample. Six novel alleles and 38 novel suballeles were identified in the three genes due to identification of variants not covered by targeted genotyping assays. In addition, several ambiguous genotype calls from a previous study were resolved using the NGS and/or long-read NGS data. Diplotype calls were mostly consistent between the calling algorithms, although several discrepancies were noted. This study highlights the utility of NGS for pharmacogenetic testing and demonstrates that there are many novel alleles that are yet to be discovered, even in highly characterized genes such as CYP2C9 and CYP2C19.

Indexed as

Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C8Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9Genetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAllelesGenotypeHaplotypesHumansCYP2C19 protein, humanCYP2C8 protein, humanCYP2C9 protein, humanCytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C8Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9

Identifiers

PMID35134542
PMCPMC9069873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.