Article

Major heart disease genes prove elusive.

Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 06/2010; 328(5983):1220-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5983.1220
Source: PubMed
1 Bookmark
 · 
41 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundA decline in hemoglobin (Hb) concentration during antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is a serious side effect. It may compel to dose reduction or even termination of antiviral treatment. The activation of erythropoietin (EPO) synthesis as a physiological response to anemia and its relation to a genetic variation within the EPO gene has not been evaluated yet.MethodsData of 348 CHC patients were reviewed retrospectively. Samples were genotyped for EPO rs1617640 and inosine triphosphatase (ITPA) rs1127354. Serum EPO concentrations were determined before and during therapy. Primary endpoints were set as Hb decline >3 g/dl at weeks 4 and 12.ResultsEPO rs1617640 G homozygotes showed a significantly lower rise of serum EPO level over time than T allele carriers (p < 0.001). The cumulative frequency of a significant Hb reduction added up to 40%. Multivariate analysis revealed that besides age, ribavirin starting dose and baseline Hb also EPO rs1617640 G homozygosity associates with Hb reduction at week 4 (p = 0.025) and 12 (p = 0.029), while ITPA C homozygotes are at risk for Hb decline particularly early during treatment. Furthermore, EPO rs1617640 G homozygotes were more frequently in need for blood transfusion, epoetin-α supplementation, or ribavirin dose reduction (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur data suggest that EPO rs1617640 genotype, the rise of serum EPO concentration as well as ITPA rs1127354 genotype are promising parameters to evaluate the Hb decline during antiviral therapy. A rational adjustment of therapy with epoetin-α supplementation might prevent serious adverse events or the need to terminate treatment.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 09/2014; 14(1):503. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-14-503 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the rapid development of "-omic" technologies, an increasing number of purported biomarkers have been identified for cancer and other diseases. The process of identifying those that are most promising and validating them for use at the population level for prevention and early detection is a critical next step in achieving significant health benefits. In this paper, we propose that in order to effectively translate biomarkers for practical clinical use, it is important to distinguish and quantify the differences between the use of biomarkers and other risk factors to identify preventive interventions versus their use in disease risk prediction and early detection. We developed mathematical models for quantitatively evaluating risk and benefit in use of biomarkers for disease prevention or early detection. Simple numerical examples were used to demonstrate the potential applications of the models for various types of data. We propose an index which takes into account potential adverse consequences of biomarker-driven interventions - the 'naive' ratio of population benefit (RPB) - to facilitate evaluating the potential impact of biomarkers on cancer prevention and personalized medicine. The index RPB is developed for both binary and continuous biomarkers/risk factors. Examples with computational analyses are presented in the paper to contrast the differences in using biomarkers/risk factors for prevention and early detection. Integrating epidemiologic knowledge into clinical decision making is a key step to translate new biomarkers/risk factors into practical use to achieve health benefits. The RPB proposed in this paper considers the absolute risk of a disease in intervention, and takes into account the risk-benefit effects simultaneously for a marker/exposure at the population level. The RPB illustrates a unique approach to quantitatively assess the risk and potential benefits of using a biomarker/risk factor for intervention in both early detection and prevention.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 03/2014; 14(1):15. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-14-15 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quantitative genetics (QG) analyses variation in traits of humans, other animals, or plants in ways that take account of the genealogical relatedness of the individuals whose traits are observed. "Classical" QG, where the analysis of variation does not involve data on measurable genetic or environmental entities or factors, is reformulated in this article using models that are free of hypothetical, idealized versions of such factors, while still allowing for defined degrees of relatedness among kinds of individuals or "varieties." The gene-free formulation encompasses situations encountered in human QG as well as in agricultural QG. This formulation is used to describe three standard assumptions involved in classical QG and provide plausible alternatives. Several concerns about the partitioning of trait variation into components and its interpretation, most of which have a long history of debate, are discussed in light of the gene-free formulation and alternative assumptions. That discussion is at a theoretical level, not dependent on empirical data in any particular situation. Additional lines of work to put the gene-free formulation and alternative assumptions into practice and to assess their empirical consequences are noted, but lie beyond the scope of this article. The three standard QG assumptions examined are: (1) partitioning of trait variation into components requires models of hypothetical, idealized genes with simple Mendelian inheritance and direct contributions to the trait; (2) all other things being equal, similarity in traits for relatives is proportional to the fraction shared by the relatives of all the genes that vary in the population (e.g., fraternal or dizygotic twins share half of the variable genes that identical or monozygotic twins share); (3) in analyses of human data, genotype-environment interaction variance (in the classical QG sense) can be discounted. The concerns about the partitioning of trait variation discussed include: the distinction between traits and underlying measurable factors; the possible heterogeneity in factors underlying the development of a trait; the kinds of data needed to estimate key empirical parameters; and interpretations based on contributions of hypothetical genes; as well as, in human studies, the labeling of residual variance as a non-shared environmental effect; and the importance of estimating interaction variance.
    Acta Biotheoretica 09/2012; DOI:10.1007/s10441-012-9164-2 · 1.23 Impact Factor