We all differ in our response to drug treatment
occasionally
with dramatic effects. The era of "one drug fits all patients" is
about to give way to individualised therapy matching the patient's unique genetic make up with an optimally effective drug.1
Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics are the emerging disciplines that
are leading the way towards individualised
medicine.
2 3
Initially, researchers focused their
attention on pharmacogenetics
variations in single candidate genes
responsible for variable drug response. Subsequently, studies involving
the entire human genome broadened the scope of investigation,
giving rise to pharmacogenomics as one of the "hottest" fields in
biotechnology today.
|
Summary points
Response to drug treatment can vary greatly between patients;
genetic factors have a major role in treatment outcome
Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics are emerging disciplines that
focus on genetic determinants of drug response at the levels of single
genes or the entire human genome respectively
Technologies involving gene chip arrays can determine thousands of
variations in DNA sequences for individual patients; most variants are
single nucleotide polymorphisms
Pharmacogenomics aims at establishing a signature of DNA sequence
variants that are characteristic of individual patients to assess
disease susceptibility and select the optimal drug treatment
This approach has the potential to revolutionise prevention and
treatment of diseases
|
 |
Pharmacogenetics |
Unexpected drug reactions have been noted for some time, but the
systematic study of hereditary origins began only in the 1950s. A few
patients developed prolonged respiratory muscular paralysis after being
given succinylcholine (suxamethonium), a short acting muscle relaxant
widely used in surgery and electroshock treatment. In the 1970s, a
trial with the antihypertensive agent debrisoquine resulted in a
precipitous drop of blood pressure and collapse in nearly 10% of
volunteers. Furthermore, isoniazid therapy for tuberculosis caused
peripheral neuropathies in patients who were sensitive to the
neurotoxic effects of the drug. Ground breaking genetic and biochemical
studies by Werner Kalow and others showed that these adverse effects
result from polymorphisms in genes encoding the drug metabolising
enzymes serum cholinesterase,4 cytochrome
P-450,5 and N-acetyltransferase.6 These
observations laid the foundation for pharmacogenetics.
Functional analysis
Today, many examples of genetic variability in drug response and
toxicity are known (table). In a few cases, genetic tests are beginning
to find their way into clinical practice. In cancer chemotherapy with
tioguanine, severe toxicity or even death can result if a patient is
unable to inactivate the drug. Functional assays of thiopurine
methyltransferase in red blood cells or genotyping can identify those
patients who are at risk and must be given a much lower dose of
tioguanine.
7 8
This is particularly critical for the 1 in
300 patients who is homozygous for null alleles (non-functional) of the
gene encoding thiopurine methyltransferase which converts the drug to
its inactive methylated form. Therefore, genotyping or functional
analysis has become standard practice in major cancer treatment centres
such as the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minneapolis, and St Jude
Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
Cytochrome P-450
The large family of cytochrome P-450 genes has been most intensely
studied because it contains the main drug metabolising enzymes encoded
by numerous genes.2 Among the cytochrome P-450 subtypes,
CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 play a critical part in determining the response to
several drugs. This is particularly important for lipophilic
drugs
such as drugs that act on the central nervous system and
penetrate the lipophilic blood-brain barrier
because renal excretion
is minimal and cytochrome P-450 metabolism provides the only means of
effective drug elimination. Thus, homozygous carriers of CYP2D6 null
alleles and cannot readily degrade and excrete many drugs, including
debrisoquine, metoprolol, nortriptyline, and propafenone.9
These patients are termed "poor metabolisers" for CYP2D6 selective
drugs. Because of this they are exquisitely sensitive to these drugs.
The incidence of "poor metabolisers" varies greatly among ethnic
groups, ranging from 1% in Japanese people to 15% in Nigerians.
Similarly, patients with defective CYP2C19 subtypes are highly
sensitive to methoin (mephenytoin), hexobarbital (hexobarbitone), and
other drugs selectively metabolised by this P-450 isoform.
The principal molecular defect in poor metabolisers is a single base
pair mutation (A
G) in exon 5 of CYP2C19.10 Gene chips designed to test for polymorphisms of the main subtypes of cytochrome P-450 are now commercially available, but not yet in general clinical use. Cytochrome P-450 polymorphisms also affect the inactivation or, in
some cases, activation or toxification of xenobiotics, and thus affect
an individual's susceptibility to environmental toxins. This is
studied in a field of research called toxicogenetics. Launched recently
by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the
environmental genome project aims at understanding genetic factors in
individual responses to the environment and parallels the study of
genetic variability in drug
response.11
 |
Pharmacogenomics |
As a scientific discipline, pharmacogenetics has made steady
progress, but the human genome project has shattered any complacency as
it has revealed profound gaps in our knowledge. By broadening the
search for genetic polymorphisms that determine drug responses, the new
field of pharmacogenomics begins to supersede the candidate gene
approach typical of earlier pharmacogenetic studies. Initially hailed
by pharmaceutical biotechnology as the latest trend in biotechnology,
pharmacogenomics is now taken seriously everywhere. While genomic
techniques serve to identify new gene targets for drug research, and
some might refer to this as pharmacogenomics, the broader consensus is
that pharmacogenomics deals specifically with genetic variability in
drug response. The distinction between pharmacogenetics and
pharmacogenomics remains blurred, but here are some of the new ideas
typical of pharmacogenomics.
Searching for responsible genes
Each drug is likely to interact in the body with numerous
proteins, such as carrier proteins, transporters, metabolising enzymes,
and multiple types of receptors.1 These proteins determine
the absorption, distribution, excretion, targeting to the site of
action, and pharmacological response of drugs. As a result, multiple
polymorphisms in many genes could affect the drug response, requiring a
genome-wide search for the responsible genes. We now know that that
there are thousands of receptor genes in the human genome, many of
which are closely related to each other because they have evolved by
gene duplications. Therefore, we must anticipate that a drug rarely
binds just to a single receptor but rather interacts promiscuously with
several receptor types. Chlorpromazine, for example, is known to engage
several dopaminergic, adrenergic, and serotonergic receptors. As a
result, polymorphisms in multiple genes can affect the drug response.
Polymorphisms
Polymorphisms are generally defined as variations of DNA sequence
that are present in more than 1% of the population. Most polymorphisms
are single nucleotide polymorphisms (referred to as "snips"). As
the human genome contains three billion nucleotides, and variations
between individuals occur in ~1/300 base pairs, around 10 million
single nucleotide polymorphisms probably exist. Only 1% of these may
have any functional consequence at all, and thus individuals differ
from each other genetically by roughly 100 000 polymorphic sites,
providing for near infinite variety. As only a small fraction of these
single nucleotide polymorphisms will prove relevant to drug response,
our goal will be to identify the most important variants.
Microarray gene chips
Novel technology in the form of microarray chips enables us to
scan the entire human genome for relevant polymorphisms.
12 13
We can determine simultaneously many
thousands of polymorphisms in a patient. At present, these single
nucleotide polymorphisms are selected merely as markers evenly
distributed throughout the genome, in the hope that functionally
relevant polymorphisms can be associated with specific markers by
virtue of their proximity on the chromosome. Such genome-wide
association studies are already being used in the discovery of
susceptibility genes for diseases such as asthma and prostate cancer,
but they are equally suitable for determining the genes involved in
drug response. Genome-wide scanning can identify these genes even if we
do not know the mechanisms by which the drug acts in the body. The
French genomics company, Genset, currently uses gene chips with 60 000
single nucleotide polymorphism markers
sufficient for a complete
genomic scan
applied to clinical drug trials in partnership with major
pharmaceutical companies. Expanding the number of single nucleotide
polymorphisms and selecting functionally relevant single nucleotide
polymorphisms in coding or promoter/enhancer regions of genes is quite
feasible with current technology and would greatly enhance the power of
genome-wide scanning. Herein lies the main incentive for the current
rush in the pharmaceutical industry to patent single nucleotide
polymorphism markers. It might also be possible to salvage useful
experimental drugs that would have failed with standard clinical
trials, because of an unacceptable incidence of toxicity in a poorly
defined patient population. Stratifying patient populations in relation
to genetic criteria emerges as a major challenge to the pharmaceutical
industry. Undoubtedly, the insights expected to emerge from such an
approach are staggering, but they cannot be gauged accurately at present.
Chip technology
Microarrays can further serve to determine the expression pattern
of genes in a target tissue. This shows the mechanisms of drug action
in a genomic context. It can also clarify interindividual differences
in drug response that are downstream of immediate drug effects in the
body by shear force of the massive amount of information emanating from
chip technology. Analysing the entire transcriptional programme of a
tissue
for example, fibroblasts in response to serum
stimulation14
provides unprecedented details of a complex
system and leads to new insights in pathophysiology and biological drug
response. Tissue transcript profiling is especially appropriate in
cancers because mRNA can be extracted from biopsy specimens or surgical
samples. Altered gene expression in the tumour can serve as a guide for
selecting effective drug therapy or avoiding unnecessary exposure to
toxic but ineffective drugs
for example, the overexpression of
drug resistance genes encoding transporters
(table).
 | | (Credit: INCYTE) |
View larger version (71K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Incyte's microarray service allows researchers to analyse
differential expression in normal and diseased cells
|
|
 |
Promise of pharmacogenomics |
These advances are the harbinger of profound changes in treatment.
What then do we expect to gain from pharmacogenomics? In the near
future, genotyping can help avert severe drug toxicity that is
genetically determined but occurs only rarely. Alternatively, drugs may
be designed a priori so that they are not subject to extreme variations
that result from a few well defined polymorphisms. Drug structures
under development are already being selected so that they do not
interact with cytochrome P-450 subtype CYP2D6 to avoid unwarranted
toxicity in people who metabolise this poorly.
Predicting drug efficacy
Looking further ahead, and on a much broader scale, we could
improve drug efficacy by distinguishing between people who respond well
to a drug and those who respond poorly. Often, an effective drug
response is found in a few patients treated, while most benefit little
or not at all. Much could be gained if we could select the optimal drug
for the individual patient before treatment begins. Perhaps a gene chip
that establishes a single nucleotide polymorphism signature involving
multiple genes relevant to therapeutic outcome for each individual will be developed. This signature could offer insights into an individual's susceptibility to disease and responsiveness to drugs, enabling optimal
drug selection by genetic criteria. For example, cure rates with
combined surgical and drug treatment of advanced colorectal carcinoma
range from 20% to 40%, while the remainder of the patients experience
little gain or even severe toxicity from chemotherapy. If we could
predict which patients respond best to a particular drug
or better,
which drug will yield optimal effects for a given patient
much will be
gained. The success of this approach will depend critically on the
selection of single nucleotide polymorphisms tested by the gene chip.
Single nucleotide polymorphisms must be informative and many must be
tested to scan the entire genome. This task is by no means complete and
constitutes a major goal of those companies which are focusing on genomics.
 |
Limitations |
There are also formidable obstacles that we are unlikely to
overcome in the near future. The dynamic complexity of the human genome, involvement of multiple genes in drug responses, and racial differences in the prevalence of gene variants impede effective genome-wide scanning and progress towards practical clinical
applications. Furthermore, the drug response is probably affected by
multiple genes, each gene with multiple polymorphisms distributed in
the general population. For example, the anticancer drug 5-fluorouracil used in the treatment of colorectal cancer is activated and inactivated by nearly 40 different enzymes. Each of these is currently being scanned for relevant polymorphisms at the biotech company Variagenics. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase is a likely candidate in 5-fluorouracil inactivation (table). However, whether extensive genotyping will provide useful predictors of clinical response remains to be seen.
Racial differences add further confounding factors. Drug response might
be predicted from a certain pattern of polymorphisms rather than only a
single polymorphism, yet these patterns probably differ between ethnic
groups. This could prevent us from making predictions about drug
responses across the general patient population, and it emphasises the
need to stratify clinical pharmacogenomics studies.
Genomic technologies are still evolving rapidly, at an exponential pace
similar to the development of computer technology over the past 20 years. We are not certain where genomic technologies will be 10 years
from now.
Ethical issues also need to be resolved. Holding sensitive information
on someone's genetic make up raises questions of privacy and security
and ethical dilemmas in disease prognosis and treatment choices. After
all, polymorphisms relevant to drug response may overlap with disease
susceptibility, and divulging such information could jeopardise an
individual. On the other hand, legal issues may force the inclusion of
pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. Once the genetic component of
a severe adverse drug effect is documented, doctors may be obliged to
order the genetic test to avoid malpractice litigation.
 |
Impact of pharmacogenomics |
Pharmacogenomics will have a profound impact on the way drug
treatment is conducted. We can include here bioengineered proteins as
drugs, or even gene therapy designed to deliver proteins to target
tissues. These treatments are also subject to constraints and
complexities engendered by individual variability. A case in point is
the treatment of breast cancer with trastuzumab (Herceptin; Genentech,
USA) a humanised monoclonal antibody against the HER2 receptor.
Overexpression of HER2 may occur as a somatic genetic change in breast
cancer and other tumours. This correlates with poor clinical prognosis
and serves as a marker for effective therapy with trastuzumab, either
alone or in combination with chemotherapy.
15 16
Whether we will see broad use of gene chips in clinical practice within
10 years is questionable, but the mere knowledge of the principles
underlying genetic variability will prove valuable in optimising drug
therapy. Pharmacogenomics will lead us towards individualised therapy,
but it will also help us understand limitations inherent in treating
disease in a broad patient population