Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 55: 625–629.
CYP3A5 phenotype-genotype correlations in a British population
Barry P. King, Julian B. S. Leathart, Elaine Mutch, Faith M. Williams & Ann K. Daly
p. 625 The RsaI digestion pattern has been incorrectly described. The first sentence of the Methods paragraph of the Abstract should read “CYP3A5-specific primers were designed with one including a base-pair mismatch to create a RsaI site in samples positive for G6986 (CYP3A5*3 allele).”
p. 626 Paragraph 3 of the Materials and Methods has some typographical errors.Primer 3A5A should read “5′-CCTGCCT TCAATTTTTCACT-3′ ”. However, the primer listed in the original paper (5′-CCTGCCT TCAATTTTCACT-3′) gives identical results under the same PCR conditions.
Primer 3A5B does not have the mismatched base underlined and should read “5′-GGTC CAAACAGGGAAGAGGT-3′ ”
In the third sentence of this paragraph, the RsaI digestion pattern has been again incorrectly described and should read “A single mismatch was introduced into the penultimate position of the reverse primer (see underlined G in the sequence of the primer 3A5B) which is predicted to result in the creation of a RsaI restriction site when G is present at the adjacent position 6986 (CYP3A5*3 allele).”
p. 627 In paragraph 1 of the Results, the description of the RsaI digestion pattern is not correct. The third and fourth sentences should read “As shown in Figure 1a, following PCR-RFLP analysis, samples heterozygous for CYP3A5*1 showed four bands of 102 bp, 94 bp, 74 bp and 20 bp whereas those homozygous for CYP3A5*3 showed three bands of 102 bp, 74 bp and 20 bp. Samples homozygous for CYP3A5*1 are predicted to show two bands of 102 bp and 94 bp but no samples with this genotype were detected in the present study.”