The extent and impact of variation in ADME genes in sub-Saharan African populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigating variation in genes involved in the absorption, distribution, metabolism , and excretion (ADME) of drugs are key to characterising pharmacogenomic (PGx) relationships. ADME gene variation is relatively well characterised in European and Asian populations, but African populations are under-studied – which has implications for safe and effective drug use in Africa. The genetic diversity of ADME genes across sub-Saharan African populations is large. The Southern African population cluster is most distinct from that of far West Africa. PGx strategies based on European variants will be of limited use in African populations. Although established variants are important, PGx must take into account the full range of African variation. This work urges further characterisation of variants in African populations including in vitro and in silico studies, and to consider the unique African ADME landscape when developing precision medicine guidelines and tools for African populations. Author summary The ADME genes are a group of genes that play a key role in absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of drugs. Variations in these genes can have a significant impact on drug safety and efficacy. Africa has a high level of genetic variation and is under-studied in drug development, which makes study of variations in these genes in African populations very important. Using a new data set of 458 high-coverage genomes from across Africa, we characterise the extent and impact of variation in the ADME genes, looking at both single nucleotide and copy number variations. We identified 343,368 variants, including 40,692 novel variants, and 930 coding variants which are predicted to have high impact on function. Our discovery curves indicate that there will be considerable value in sequencing more African genomes. Moreover, relatively few of these novel variants are captured on common genotyping arrays. We show that there is considerable diversity within Africa in some important genes, and this will have significant consequences for the emerging field of precision medicine in Africa.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".