Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Notes from the SNP vs. haplotype front.

R Judson1, J C Stephens

  • 1Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, 5 Science Park, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. r.judson@genaissance.com

Pharmacogenomics
|March 22, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Apparatus for skidding sensitivity testing of energetic materials.

The Review of scientific instruments·2021
Same author

Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of aryl piperazines with potential as antidiabetic agents via the stimulation of glucose uptake and inhibition of NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase.

European journal of medicinal chemistry·2020
Same author

Subterahertz Photonic Crystal Klystron Amplifier.

Physical review letters·2020
Same author

Measuring nutrition-related outcomes in a cohort of multi-trauma patients following intensive care unit discharge.

Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association·2019
Same author

Major trauma in older persons.

BJS open·2018
Same author

Evaluation of androgen assay results using a curated Hershberger database.

Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.)·2018
Same journal

Closely similar tacrolimus morning troughs and graft function across the recipients' common <i>ABCB1</i> polymorphisms (<i>c.2677G>T/A</i>, <i>c.1236C>T</i>, <i>c.3435C>T</i>) early after renal transplantation.

Pharmacogenomics·2026
Same journal

Pharmacogenomics for stratified antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder: evidence, limits and a roadmap for clinical use.

Pharmacogenomics·2026
Same journal

Guidance from an informed public on collecting and sharing PGx test results for major depressive disorder: "It's no different from your blood type".

Pharmacogenomics·2026
Same journal

Optimizing pharmacogenomics workflows: a qualitative evaluation of clinical service delivery models.

Pharmacogenomics·2026
Same journal

Combinations of single gene predictors with AI-driven polygenic precision therapies in cardiovascular diseases.

Pharmacogenomics·2026
Same journal

Practical guide to implementing pre-emptive pharmacogenetic screening in routine pediatric oncology care.

Pharmacogenomics·2026
See all related articles

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and haplotypes are key genetic markers in clinical research. This study offers guidance on selecting the most suitable marker for specific situations, comparing molecular and electronic haplotyping methods.

Area of Science:

  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Clinical Research
  • Bioinformatics

Background:

  • Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and haplotypes are widely utilized genetic markers in clinical studies.
  • The selection between SNPs and haplotypes can impact study outcomes and interpretation.
  • Advances in molecular and electronic techniques necessitate a review of haplotyping approaches.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide guidelines for choosing between SNPs and haplotypes in clinical studies.
  • To compare molecular haplotyping techniques with electronic approaches.
  • To aid researchers in selecting appropriate genetic markers for their specific research needs.

Main Methods:

  • Review and synthesis of existing literature on SNP and haplotype utility.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparative analysis of molecular haplotyping versus electronic haplotyping methods.
  • Development of decision-making criteria for marker selection.

    • Main Results:

    • Established criteria for determining the suitability of SNPs versus haplotypes based on study design and objectives.
    • Overview of the strengths and limitations of various molecular haplotyping techniques.
    • Contrasted the practical applications and efficiencies of molecular and electronic haplotyping.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice between SNPs and haplotypes depends on the specific research question and available resources.
    • Understanding the nuances of different haplotyping techniques is crucial for effective genetic marker selection.
    • Informed selection of genetic markers enhances the robustness and interpretability of clinical studies.