MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009657275 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044324

Combinatorial Pharmacogenetic Interactions of Bucindolol and β1, α2C Adrenergic Receptor Polymorphisms

2012· article· en· W2009657275 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. O’Connor, Mona Fiuzat, Peter E. Carson, Inder S. Anand, Jonathan F. Plehn, Stephen S. Gottlieb, Marc A. Silver, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Alan B. Miller, Michel White, Ryan Walsh, Penny Nelson, Allen Medway, Gordon Davis, A. Robertson, J. David Port, James A. Carr, Guinevere A. Murphy, Laura C. Lazzeroni, William T. Abraham, Stephen B. Liggett, Michael R. Bristow

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthARCA BiopharmaU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPharmacogeneticsMinor allele frequencyAlleleGenotypePopulationPharmacologyInternal medicinePharmacodynamicsAllele frequencyPolymorphism (computer science)PharmacokineticsEndocrinologyMedicineBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetics involves complex interactions of gene products affecting pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, but there is little information on the interaction of multiple genetic modifiers of drug response. Bucindolol is a β-blocker/sympatholytic agent whose efficacy is modulated by polymorphisms in the primary target (β(1) adrenergic receptor [AR] Arg389 Gly on cardiac myocytes) and a secondary target modifier (α(2C) AR Ins [wild-type (Wt)] 322-325 deletion [Del] on cardiac adrenergic neurons). The major allele homozygotes and minor allele carriers of each polymorphism are respectively associated with efficacy enhancement and loss, creating the possibility for genotype combination interactions that can be measured by clinical trial methodology. METHODOLOGY: In a 1,040 patient substudy of a bucindolol vs. placebo heart failure clinical trial, we tested the hypothesis that combinations of β(1)389 and α(2C)322-325 polymorphisms are additive for both efficacy enhancement and loss. Additionally, norepinephrine (NE) affinity for β(1)389 AR variants was measured in human explanted left ventricles. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The combination of β(1)389 Arg+α(2C)322-325 Wt major allele homozygotes (47% of the trial population) was non-additive for efficacy enhancement across six clinical endpoints, with an average efficacy increase of 1.70-fold vs. 2.32-fold in β(1)389 Arg homozygotes+α(2C)322-325 Del minor allele carriers. In contrast, the minor allele carrier combination (13% subset) exhibited additive efficacy loss. These disparate effects are likely due to the higher proportion (42% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.009) of high-affinity NE binding sites in β(1)389 Arg vs. Gly ARs, which converts α(2C)Del minor allele-associated NE lowering from a therapeutic liability to a benefit. CONCLUSIONS: On combination, the two sets of AR polymorphisms 1) influenced bucindolol efficacy seemingly unpredictably but consistent with their pharmacologic interactions, and 2) identified subpopulations with enhanced (β(1)389 Arg homozygotes), intermediate (β(1)389 Gly carriers+α(2C)322-325 Wt homozygotes), and no (β(1)389 Gly carriers+α(2C)322-325 Del carriers) efficacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207