4.2 Review

Uncovering drug-responsive regulatory elements

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS
卷 16, 期 16, 页码 1829-1841

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/pgs.15.121

关键词

ChIP-seq; enhancers; gene regulatory elements; pharmacogenomics; promoters; RNA-seq; transcriptional regulation

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM61390]
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders Stroke [1R01NS079231]
  3. National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases [1R01DK090382]
  4. National Cancer Institute [1R01CA197139]
  5. Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES-Brazil)
  6. Young Talent Attraction Fellowship-BJT from National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brazil)
  7. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA197139] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK090382] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [U01GM061390, U19GM061390] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  10. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS079231] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nucleotide changes in gene regulatory elements can have a major effect on interindividual differences in drug response. For example, by reviewing all published pharmacogenomic genome-wide association studies, we show here that 96.4% of the associated single nucleotide polymorphisms reside in noncoding regions. We discuss how sequencing technologies are improving our ability to identify drug response-associated regulatory elements genome-wide and to annotate nucleotide variants within them. We highlight specific examples of how nucleotide changes in these elements can affect drug response and illustrate the techniques used to find them and functionally characterize them. Finally, we also discuss challenges in the field of drug-responsive regulatory elements that need to be considered in order to translate these findings into the clinic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据