It has been known for more than 30 years that individuals vary in their ability to metabolize therapeutically useful molecules. This variation is due in large part to genetic differences among individuals. Humans are exposed to thousands of natural and synthetic compounds, in addition to drugs, that must be metabolized to become carcinogenic. Genetic variation in the encoded enzymes involved in this metabolism is thought to be the basis for some of the differences in cancer susceptibility among individuals. The study of how genetic variation affects the metabolism of drugs and other compounds is called pharmacogenetics.
KeywordsCancer Susceptibility CYP2D6 Gene MSPI Polymorphism Germ Line Polymorphism DPYD Gene
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Smith G, Stanley LA, Sim E, et al.: Metabolic polymorphisms and cancer susceptibility. Cancer Sury 1995, 25: 27–65.Google Scholar
- 10.Rebbeck TR: Molecular epidemiology of the human glutathione S-transferase genotypes GSTM1 and GSTT1 in cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey 1997, 6: 733–743.Google Scholar
- 11.McWilliams JE, Sanderson BJ, Harris EL, et al.: Glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1) deficiency and lung cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey 1995, 4: 589–594.Google Scholar
- 14.Dekant W, Vamvaka S, Anders MW: Formation and fate of nephrotoxic and cytotoxic glutathione S-conjugates: cysteine conjugate beta-lyase pathway. Adv Pharmacol 1994, 27: 114–162.Google Scholar
- 15.Meyer UA, Zanger UM: Molecular mechanisms of genetic polymorphisms of drug metabolism. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1997, 37:269–296.Google Scholar
- 19.Lang NP, Butler MA, Massengill J, et al.: Rapid metabol- ic phenotypes for acetyltransferase and cytochrome P4501A2 and putative exposure to food-borne hetero- cyclic amines increase the risk for colorectal cancer or polyps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey 1994, 3: 675–682.Google Scholar
- 22.McMurrough J, McLeod HL: Analysis of the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase polymorphism in a British population. Br J Clin Pharmaco1, 1996, 41: 425–427.Google Scholar