Table 2.
Comparison of the results predicted by the ADME optimized algorithm for the CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 variants, and the results obtained in the in vitro experiment
| Amino acid exchange | ADME score1 | ADME predicted activity compared to CYP2C19.1/ CYP2D6.1 (%) | ADME prediction* | Average activity (%) compared to CYP2C19.1/ CYP2D6.1 ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYP2C19 | ||||
| F114C | 0.8 | 0–10% | D | 18.8 ± 10.7 |
| C164G | 0.8 | 0–10% | D | 26.3 ± 9.5 |
| R186H | 0.6 | 20–30% | D | 20.7 ± 6.3 |
| H251Q | 0.8 | 0–10% | D | 3.7 ± 5.8 |
| K275M | 0.8 | 0–10% | D | 36.6 ± 5.8 |
| A297V | 1 | 0 | D | 2.9 ± 4.4 |
| M339T | 0.6 | 20–30% | D | 70.6 ± 35.1 |
| CYP2D6 | ||||
| R133C | 1 | 0 | D | 4.6 ± 2.6 |
| D301N | 0.6 | 20–30% | D | 0.9 ± 0.9 |
| A305T | 1 | 0 | D | 9.6 ± 3.3 |
| L314M | 0.8 | 0–10% | D | 58.7 ± 24.0 |
*D means deleterious