Conference Scene

The great debate: Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenetics research, good or bad?

Kent R Bailey, Cheng Cheng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Will genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 'work for pharmacogenetics research? This question was the topic of a staged debate, with pro and con sides, aimed to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of GWAS for pharmacogenetics studies. After a full day of seminars at the Fifth Statistical Analysis Workshop of the Pharmacogenetics Research Network, the lively debate was held-appropriately-at Goonies Comedy Club in Rochester (MN, USA). The pro side emphasized that the many GWAS successes for identifying genetic variants associated with disease risk show that it works; that the current genotyping platforms are efficient, with good imputation methods to fill in missing data; that its global assessment is always a success even if no significant associations are detected; and that genetic effects are likely to be large because humans have not evolved in a drug-therapy environment. By contrast, the con side emphasized that we have limited knowledge of the complexity of the genome; limited clinical phenotypes compromise studies; the likely multifactorial nature of drug response clouding the small genetic effects; and limitations of sample size and replication studies in pharmacogenetic studies. Lively and insightful discussions emphasized further research efforts that might benefit GWAS in pharmacogenetics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)305-308
Number of pages4
JournalPharmacogenomics
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2010

Fingerprint

Genome-Wide Association Study
Pharmacogenetics
Research
Sample Size
Genome
Phenotype
Education
Drug Therapy
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Pharmacogenomic Testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Genetics
  • Molecular Medicine

Cite this

Conference Scene : The great debate: Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenetics research, good or bad? / Bailey, Kent R; Cheng, Cheng.

In: Pharmacogenomics, Vol. 11, No. 3, 03.2010, p. 305-308.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e5bbcb75991e4592b49aa9a042a29b29,
title = "Conference Scene: The great debate: Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenetics research, good or bad?",
abstract = "Will genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 'work for pharmacogenetics research? This question was the topic of a staged debate, with pro and con sides, aimed to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of GWAS for pharmacogenetics studies. After a full day of seminars at the Fifth Statistical Analysis Workshop of the Pharmacogenetics Research Network, the lively debate was held-appropriately-at Goonies Comedy Club in Rochester (MN, USA). The pro side emphasized that the many GWAS successes for identifying genetic variants associated with disease risk show that it works; that the current genotyping platforms are efficient, with good imputation methods to fill in missing data; that its global assessment is always a success even if no significant associations are detected; and that genetic effects are likely to be large because humans have not evolved in a drug-therapy environment. By contrast, the con side emphasized that we have limited knowledge of the complexity of the genome; limited clinical phenotypes compromise studies; the likely multifactorial nature of drug response clouding the small genetic effects; and limitations of sample size and replication studies in pharmacogenetic studies. Lively and insightful discussions emphasized further research efforts that might benefit GWAS in pharmacogenetics.",
author = "Bailey, {Kent R} and Cheng Cheng",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
doi = "10.2217/pgs.10.6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "305--308",
journal = "Pharmacogenomics",
issn = "1462-2416",
publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conference Scene

T2 - The great debate: Genome-wide association studies in pharmacogenetics research, good or bad?

AU - Bailey, Kent R

AU - Cheng, Cheng

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - Will genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 'work for pharmacogenetics research? This question was the topic of a staged debate, with pro and con sides, aimed to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of GWAS for pharmacogenetics studies. After a full day of seminars at the Fifth Statistical Analysis Workshop of the Pharmacogenetics Research Network, the lively debate was held-appropriately-at Goonies Comedy Club in Rochester (MN, USA). The pro side emphasized that the many GWAS successes for identifying genetic variants associated with disease risk show that it works; that the current genotyping platforms are efficient, with good imputation methods to fill in missing data; that its global assessment is always a success even if no significant associations are detected; and that genetic effects are likely to be large because humans have not evolved in a drug-therapy environment. By contrast, the con side emphasized that we have limited knowledge of the complexity of the genome; limited clinical phenotypes compromise studies; the likely multifactorial nature of drug response clouding the small genetic effects; and limitations of sample size and replication studies in pharmacogenetic studies. Lively and insightful discussions emphasized further research efforts that might benefit GWAS in pharmacogenetics.

AB - Will genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 'work for pharmacogenetics research? This question was the topic of a staged debate, with pro and con sides, aimed to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of GWAS for pharmacogenetics studies. After a full day of seminars at the Fifth Statistical Analysis Workshop of the Pharmacogenetics Research Network, the lively debate was held-appropriately-at Goonies Comedy Club in Rochester (MN, USA). The pro side emphasized that the many GWAS successes for identifying genetic variants associated with disease risk show that it works; that the current genotyping platforms are efficient, with good imputation methods to fill in missing data; that its global assessment is always a success even if no significant associations are detected; and that genetic effects are likely to be large because humans have not evolved in a drug-therapy environment. By contrast, the con side emphasized that we have limited knowledge of the complexity of the genome; limited clinical phenotypes compromise studies; the likely multifactorial nature of drug response clouding the small genetic effects; and limitations of sample size and replication studies in pharmacogenetic studies. Lively and insightful discussions emphasized further research efforts that might benefit GWAS in pharmacogenetics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77949633191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77949633191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/pgs.10.6

DO - 10.2217/pgs.10.6

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 305

EP - 308

JO - Pharmacogenomics

JF - Pharmacogenomics

SN - 1462-2416

IS - 3

ER -