Interplay of IL6 and CRIM1 on thiopurine-induced neutropenia in leukemic patients with wild-type NUDT15 and TPMT ================================================================================================================ * Hyery Kim * Seungwon You * Yoomi Park * Jung Yoon Choi * Youngeun Ma * Kyung Tak Hong * Kyung-Nam Koh * Sunmin Yun * Kye Hwa Lee * Hee Young Shin * Suehyun Lee * Keon Hee Yoo * Ho Joon Im * Hyoung Jin Kang * Ju Han Kim ## Abstract **Background** *NUDT15* and *TPMT* variants are strong genetic determinants of thiopurine-induced hematological toxicity. Despite recent discovery of homozygous *CRIM1* effect on thiopurine toxicity, many patients with wild-type *NUDT15, TPMT*, and *CRIM1* still suffer from thiopurine toxicity, and therapeutic failure and relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). **Methods** Novel PGx interactions associated with thiopurine toxicity in 320 pediatric ALL patients were investigated using whole-exome sequencing technology for the last-cycle 6-Mercaptopurine dose intensity percentage (DIP) tolerated by pediatric ALL patients. **Results** *IL6* rs13306435 carriers (*N*=19) exhibited significantly lower DIP (48.0±27.3%) than non-carriers (*N*=209, 69.9±29.0%; *p*=0.0016 and 0.0028 by *t*-test and multiple linear regression, respectively). Of the 19 carriers, seven with both heterozygous *IL6* rs13306435 and *CRIM1* rs3821169 showed significantly decreased DIP (24.7±8.9%) than those with *IL6* (*N*=12, 61.6±25.1%) or *CRIM1* (*N*=94, 68.1±28.4%) variant only. Both *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants showed marked inter-ethnic variability. Significant interplay between *IL6* and *CRIM1* in thiopurine toxicity was suggested. GVB (Gene-wise Variant Burden)-based four-gene-interplay model showed the best odds ratio (8.06) and potential population impact (i.e., relative risk (5.73), population attributable fraction (58%), number needed to treat (3.67) and number needed to genotype (12.50)). **Conclusions** Interplay of *IL6* rs13306435 and *CRIM1* rs3821169 was suggested as independent and/or additive genetic determinant of thiopurine toxicity beyond *NUDT15* and *TPMT* in pediatric ALL. Keywords * IL6 * CRIM1 * thiopurine toxicity * genetic determinant ## Introduction Despite improvements of combination drug therapy and risk stratification, about 20% of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients still suffer from drug resistance and treatment failure due to drug toxicities. In European populations, about 50% of thiopurine-induced cytotoxic adverse reactions such as severe neutropenia and leukopenia are explained by *NUDT15* and *TPMT* genetic variants [1, 2, 3, 4]. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) [5] publishes practical guidelines for the implementation of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing of thiopurine by using traditional star (*) allele-based molecular phenotyping for *NUDT15* and *TPMT* [6,7]. According to the established guideline, thiopurine dose is pharmacogenetically titrated based on the known risk variants of *NUDT15* and *TPMT*. However, a substantial proportion of leukemia patients who have no genetic variation in *NUDT15* or *TPMT* still suffer from life-threatening toxicity, which may result in dose reduction and/or discontinuation of thiopurine, resulting therapeutic failure and relapse of leukemia. In an attempt to overcome the PGx gap, *CRIM1* rs3821169 homozygote in East Asians has been reported as a novel risk variant of thiopurine toxicity [8]. Heterozygotes of the variant showed only mild effect on thiopurine toxicity with unknown clinical impact. However, its high prevalence (T=0.066, the Phase 3 of the 1000 Genomes Project [9]) and remarkable inter-ethnic variability (see Table 2) might have severely confounded previous PGx studies for thiopurine toxicity. Therefore, investigating PGx interactions of novel genes/variants other than *NUDT15* and *TPMT* variations is urgently needed for preventing thiopurine toxicity and improving pediatric ALL care. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/T1) Table 2. Inter-ethnic variability of thiopurine toxicity-associated pharmacogenetic variants. The categorical nature of the traditional star allele haplotype-based method can be complemented by the quantitative nature of Gene-wise Variant Burden (GVB) method for evaluating complex interplays of multiple genes/variants [10]. For instance, designating three categories (i.e., poor (PM), intermediate (IM), and normal (NM) metabolizers) per a gene creates exponentially increasing complexity of 3*N* for a drug with *N*-gene PGx interactions. *NUDT15* and *TPMT* have already required nine PGx subgroups for thiopurine, which will increase exponentially by new PGx discoveries across different ethnic groups. GVB quantitates the cumulative variant burden of one or more genes into a single score with dimensionality reduction and hence to provide a reliable frame for multiple gene-interaction analysis [11, 12, 13]. The present study aimed to identify novel PGx interactions associated with thiopurine toxicity in pediatric ALL patients who carry both wild-type (WT) *NUDT15* and *TPMT* (and do not carry *CRIM1* rs3821169 homozygote) by using whole-exome sequencing (WES) technology. We identified and evaluated the deterministic effect and their interaction of novel candidate PGx variants on a clinically important hematological toxicity indicator: the last-cycle 6-MP dose intensity percentage (DIP) tolerated by pediatric ALL patients. We provided not only the measures of clinical validity but also the measures of population impact (or clinical utility) including relative risk (RR), population attributable fraction (PAF), number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to genotype (NNG) [14] for preventing thiopurine toxicity. ## Materials and Methods ### Subjects We recruited 320 Korean pediatric ALL patients who underwent maintenance therapy with 6-Mercaptopurine (6-MP) from three teaching hospitals, Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH), Asan Medical Center (AMC), and Samsung Seoul Medical Center (SMC), located in Seoul, South Korea. All of the subjects conformed with the exclusion criteria (i.e., relapse of the disease, stem cell transplantation, Burkitt’s lymphoma, mixed phenotype acute leukemia, infant ALL, or very high risk of ALL). Patients allocated to standard risk group were treated with Children’s Cancer Group (CCG)-1891 [15], CCG-1952 [16] or Children’s Oncology Group AALL-0331 regimens [17]. In high risk group, CCG-1882 [18], 0601 or 1501 protocols for Korean multicenter studies [19] were used. In Korea, the planned dose of 6-MP was modified from 75 to 50 mg/m2, as many patients who had been given the same dose under the original Western protocol exhibited moderate to severe toxicities during 6-MP administration [20, 21]. Doses of 6-MP during maintenance were adjusted to maintain a WBC count of 2.0-3.5×109/L with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) over 500/μL, and hepatotoxicity related dose modifications were performed at the discretion of the treating physician. Hematological toxicity as the clinical endpoint was estimated by the tolerated last-cycle 6-MP DIP (%). The percentage of the actually prescribed amount to the planned dose was defined as the last cycle 6-MP DIP by using the recorded 6-MP dose per meter body surface area over the last cycle (12-week) of maintenance. The doses of the last maintenance cycle were considered because dose modification of 6-MP was mainly adopted during early phase of maintenance. Further detailed description of patients and the measurements are summarized in our previous study [8, 20, 21]. The present study was approved by the SNUH, AMC, and SMC Institutional Review Boards. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. ### Whole-exome sequencing and pharmacogenomic subgrouping WES data were obtained from pediatric ALL patients and analyzed in a bioinformatics pipeline as previously described [8, 10, 11]. CPIC provides major PGx genes with haplotype definitions and molecular function annotations based on star (*) nomenclature. We classified ALL patients into PM, IM, and NM groups of *NUDT15* and *TPMT* according to CPIC classifications [6, 7]. We considered NMs as WTs for both genes. We found that no star name designated yet to novel (or candidate) PGx genes. Thus, for the purpose of the present study, we defined WTs for *CRIM1* and *IL6* as non-carriers of *CRIM1* rs3821169 homozygote and *IL6* rs13306435 hetero/homozygote, respectively (Table 1). Haplotypes were determined by PHASE 2.1.1 [22, 23]. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/T2) Table 1. Clinical characteristics of 320 pediatric ALL patients with 6-MP maintenance therapy according to their pharmacogenetic subgroups of *NUDT15, TPMT, CRIM1* and IL6 genes. ### Gene-wise variant burden for evaluating single- and multi-gene effects Gene-wise variant burden (GVB) analysis was performed to evaluate the aggregated impact of both common and rare variants [10, 11]. The GVB of a coding gene for each individual was defined as the geometric mean of the SIFT (Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant) [24] scores of the coding variants (with SIFT score <0.7) in the coding gene, where GVB*G* denotes the GVB score of gene *G* [range: 0.0∼1.0]. The more deleterious variant burden, the lower the score. Multigene effect was evaluated by defining GVB*A,B,C* as the geometric mean of GVB*A*, GVB*B* and GVB*C* [range: 0.0∼1.0]. Gene-variant interaction was considered by defining conditional GVB*G^*(*variant*) as the GVB score of gene *G* dependent on the presence or absence of the specified *variant*. For example, GVB*CRIM1^ (rs13306435)* equals GVB*CRIM1* when *rs13306435* is present and vanishes to a WT score of 1.0 when absent. ### Inter-ethnic variability of allele frequencies and molecular phenotypes By using the 2504 whole genome sequences with multiple ethnicities provided by the 1000 Genomes Project phase 3 [9], we investigated inter-ethnic distributions of the PGx alleles and haplotypes with their molecular phenotypes associated with thiopurine toxicity (see Table 2). ### Statistical analysis The last-cycle 6-MP DIPs (%) according to different PGx groups were tested by Student’s *t*-test or one-way ANOVA with posthoc Tukey test. Multiple linear regression was also applied to adjust confounding clinical variables. The powers of GVB*NUDT15*, GVB*TPMT*, GVB*CRIM1*, and GVB*IL6*, and their combinations for predicting 6-MP DIP were systematically evaluated by analyzing ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves across eight different DIP cutoffs (i.e., 10%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 60%, 80%, and 100%) in terms of AUCs (areas under the ROC curves) (see Figs. 3 and 4). An ROC curve is a two-dimensional depiction of classification performance integrating all sensitivity and specificity values at all cutoff levels [25]. All statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical package (version 3.5.1). R package ‘pROC’ was used for calculating AUC values [26]. The optimal cutoff for the GVB score was determined by maximizing Youden’s index [27] ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F1) Figure 3. ROC analysis of *IL6, CRIM1*, and their combined prediction accuracies for thiopurine intolerance among pediatric ALL subjects with both wild-type *NUDT15* and *TPMT* genes (N=240). Single-gene prediction models of (a) *IL6* and (b) *CRIM1* were highly outperformed by (c) the two-gene combined model for predicting thiopurine intolerance at all DIP levels. We excluded 80 among the total of 320 subjects to control the effects of the well-established *NUDT15* and *TPMT* genes and performed ROC analysis for the 240 subjects with both wild-type *NUDT15* or *TPMT* genes. Prediction accuracies were measured across 8 cutoff levels for the last-cycle 6-MP DIP (%) (≤10%, ≤15%, ≤25%, ≤35%, ≤45%, ≤60%, ≤80%, and ≤100%) in terms of AUC. DIP (%): Dose Intensity Percentage, AUC: Area Under the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) Curve, GVB: Gene-wise Variant Burden, GVB*CRIM1^(rs13306435, rs3821169*)*: GVB of *CRIM1* dependent on *IL6* rs13306435 or *CRIM1* rs3821169 homozygote. ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F2) Figure 4. Prediction accuracy profile of single- and multi-gene models for thiopurine intolerance in the whole pediatric ALL subjects (N=320). Single-gene prediction models of (a) NUDT15 and (b) TPMT were outperformed by (c) the two-gene combined model and of (d) IL6 and (e) CRIM by (f) IL6-CRIM1 combined model. Three-gene models of NUDT15, TPMT and (g) IL6 and (h) CRIM1 were outperformed by (i) all four-gene combined model. Overall the final (i) four-gene combined model outperformed other models for predicting thiopurine intolerance at all DIP levels in pediatric ALL subjects (N=320). AUCs for predicting the last-cycle 6-MP DIP (%) were measured at 8 cutoff levels of (≤10%, ≤15%, ≤25%, ≤35%, ≤45%, ≤60%, ≤80%, and ≤100%). ALL: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, DIP: Dose Intensity Percentage, AUC: Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve, GVB: Gene-wise Variant Burden. GVB*CRIM1^*(*rs13306435**) was applied to control the potential confounding effect of the impressively high carrier frequency in East Asians (43.7% (=220/504)) compared to other ethnicities (0.2∼9.4%) and of mild effect of heterozygote on thiopurine toxicity. GVB*CRIM1^*(*rs13306435**) denotes a conditional GVB score of *CRIM1* dependent on the presence or absence of homozygous *rs3821169* variant (denoted as *rs3821169**). It equals GVB*CRIM1* when the subject carries homozygous *rs3821169* variant and otherwise vanishes to 1.0. ## Results ### *IL6* rs13306435 as a novel pharmacogenetic variant on thiopurine toxicity Table 1 describes clinical characteristics of the whole 320 pediatric ALL patients according to their PGx subgroups; 80 non-WTs (i.e., IMs or PMs) for *NUDT15* (*N*=72) and/or *TPMT* (*N*=9), 115 all WTs (for all of the four genes), and 125 both WTs (for *NUDT15* and *TPMT*) who carried *CRIM1* rs3821169 and/or *IL6* rs13306435. Of the 125 both WTs, 94, 12, 11, and 8 patients were heterozygous-*CRIM1*, heterozygous-*IL6*, homozygous-*CRIM1*, and *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* variant groups, respectively (Table 1, Fig. 1). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F3) Figure 1. Distribution of the tolerated last-cycle 6-MP DIPs (%) of *CRIM1* rs3821169- and/or *IL6* rs13306435-variant carrier vs. non-carrier subgroups among 240 pediatric ALL subjects with both *NUDT15* and *TPMT* WTs. Of the 320 pediatric ALL patients, we excluded 80 carriers of either *NUDT15* or *TPMT* variant to obtain 240 both *NUDT15*–and-*TPMT* WT subjects. Both (a) non-carrier group of *CRIM1* rs3821169 nor *IL6* rs13306435 (*N*=115, 47.92%, i.e., ‘All WTs’ in Table 1 and Fig. 2) and (b) carrier group of *CRIM1* rs3821169 heterozygote only (*N*=94, 39.17%) showed significantly higher thiopurine tolerance than carrier groups of (d) *CRIM1* rs3821169 homozygote (*N*=11, 4.38%) (adj. *p*<0.05, posthoc Tukey) and of (e) both *IL6* rs13306435 and *CRIM1* rs3821169 (*N*=8, 3.33%) (adj. *p*<0.0005, posthoc Tukey) by one-way ANOVA (*p*=0.0001). (c) Carrier group of *IL6* rs13306435 heterozygote variant only (*N*=12, 5.00%) also showed significantly higher thiopurine intolerance than (c) that of both *IL6* and *CRIM1* hetero/homozygote (adj. *p*<0.05, posthoc Tukey). No carrier of *IL6* homozygote was found and only one subject carried both *IL6* heterozygote and *CRIM1* homozygote variants (DIP = 9.7%). Thiopurine intolerance was measured by the last-cycle 6-MP DIP(%) among the 240 pediatric ALL patients with both *NUDT15* and *TPMT* wilde type genes to control their effect on thiopurine intolerance. ALL: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, WT: Wild Type, DIP (%): Dose Intensity Percentage, **p*<0.05 and ***p*<0.01, post-hoc Tukey test after one-way ANOVA We used all WTs as non-PGx controls (*N*=115) for the following analysis. We replicated previous PGx findings of *NUDT15, TPMT*, and homozygous-*CRIM1*. The tolerated 6-MP DIPs of non-WTs (i.e., IM or PM) for *NUDT15* (47.1±30.5%, *N*=72) and/or for *TPMT* (56.6±33.6%, *N*=9) were significantly lower than that of all WTs (71.3±29.6%, *N*=115) (*p*<0.001, Table 1). The homozygous-*CRIM1* group (dark blue circle in Fig. 2) exhibited significantly lower 6-MP DIP of than all WTs before (*N*=16, 44.6±35.2%) or after (*N*=11, 42.3±35.0%) controlling the five subjects with *NUDT15* (59.76±37.24%) or *IL6* (9.77%) variants. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/F4) Figure 2. Distribution of the last-cycle 6-MP DIP of pediatric ALL patients according to *NUDT15, TPMT, CRIM1* and *IL6* pharmacogenetic subgroups (N=320). Green circles depict *NUDT15* and *TPMT* metabolizer phenotypes and blue and orange circles represent *CRIM1* rs3821169 and *L6* rs13306435 genotype subgroups, respectively. Of the 320 patients, 115 with no pharmacogenetic variants exhibited higher 6-MP DIPs (71.31%) than 72 *NUDT15* (47.14%), 9 *TPMT* (56.56%), 147 *CRIM1* (57.89%), and 25 *IL6* (DIP=44.47%) non-WTs. Subjects with both *CRIM1* and *IL6* variants (*N*=10, 3.13%) exhibited the lowest DIPs (9.77∼32.68%, in red numbers). Numbers are number of subjects and 6-MP DIPs (mean±S.D.). ALL: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, WT: Wild Type, non-WT: non wild-type, i.e., poor or intermediate metabolizers for *NUDT15* and *TPMT*, DIP: Dose Intensity Percentage. To control the PGx effect of *NUDT15, TPMT*, and homozygous-*CRIM1* on thiopurine toxicity, we extracted 228 samples who are non-carriers of these variants. We explored them for further discovery of novel PGx variant. We found that carriers of a novel variant, *IL6* rs13306435 (*N*=19, 48.0±27.3%), exhibited significantly lower 6-MP DIP than non-carriers (*N*=209, 69.9±29.0%) by Student’s *t*-test (*p*=0.0016) and multiple covariates linear regression (*p*=0.0028). Further, of the 19 carriers, we found that seven patients with both *IL6* rs13306435 and heterozygous-*CRIM1* showed significant decrease in 6-MP DIP (24.7 ± 8.9%) compared to the 12 patients harbouring *IL6* rs13306435 variant only (61.6 ± 25.1%) (brown circle in Fig. 2). Potential interplay between *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants were suggested, which was further supported by the following finding that the seven patients with both *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants showed significantly lower 6-MP DIP (24.7 ± 8.9%) than 94 heterozygous-*CRIM1* carriers (68.1±28.4%, light blue circle in Fig. 2). ### Interplay of *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants in thiopurine toxicity Figure 1 exhibits the distributions of the last-cycle 6-MP DIPs (%) of 115 all WTs (Fig. 1(a)) and 125 *CRIM1* and/or *IL6* variant carriers who are both WTs (for *NUDT15* and *TPMT*) and consist of four PGx groups; heterozygous-*CRIM1* (*N*=94), heterozygous-*IL6* (*N*=12), homozygous-*CRIM1* (*N*=11), and *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* (*N*=8) (Fig. 1(b)-(e), see Table 1). Homozygous-*CRIM1* and *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* (44.6±35.2% and 24.7±8.9%, respectively, Fig. 1(d, e)) groups showed significantly lower 6-MP DIPs than all-WT and heterozygous-*CRIM1* groups (71.3±29.6% and 68.1±28.4%, respectively, Figs. 1(a, b)) by one-way ANOVA (*p*=0.0001; adj. *p*<0.05 posthoc Tukey). Further, *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* group showed significantly lower 6-MP DIP (44.6±35.2%) than heterozygous-*IL6* group (61.6±25.1%; adj. *p*<0.05, posthoc Tukey) (Fig. 1(c, e)). All of the 10 (=7+1+1+1) patients with both *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants (in red numbers in Fig. 2) exhibited the lowest DIPs (9.77∼32.68%) among all subgroups of the whole PGx groups. Thus, significant interplay between *IL6* and *CRIM1* in thiopurine toxicity was suggested. Clinically more relevant is the evaluation of the magnitude of the actual decrease in 6-MP DIP (%) tolerated by patients than mere statistical significance affected by study sample size and biomarker prevalence. Table 1 demonstrates that about one quarters of homozygous-*CRIM1* (27.3%, 3/11) and *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* (25.0%, 2/8) groups were intolerant less than 25% of the planed DIP, increasing the risk of thiopurine therapeutic failure and relapse of leukemia. These intolerance levels are comparable to those of the long-known *NUDT15* (29.2% = 21/72) and *TPMT* (22.2%, 2/11) non-WTs (Table 1) published in the current CPIC guideline. Furthermore, when we raised the DIP cutoff from 25% to 35%, the quarter proportions of homozygous-*CRIM1* and *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* groups went up to 54.6% (6/11) and 87.5% (7/8), respectively, which far exceeded 38.9% and 33.3% of *NUDT15* (28/72) and *TPMT* (3/9) non-WTs, respectively. Please notice that only 6.1 (7/115) and 10.5% (12/115) of all WTs were intolerant less than 25% and 35% of the planed DIP (Table 1). ### Interethnic variabilities in carrier frequencies and molecular phenotypes Both *NUDT15* and *TPMT* shows wide inter-ethnic variabilities. Table 2 exhibits inter-ethnic variabilities of the PGx variants and molecular phenotypes of the four thiopurine pharmacogenes computed from the 2504 subjects of the 1000 Genomes Project [9]. *NUDT15* non-WT (i.e., IM or PM) is popular in East (22.6%) and South (13.9%) Asians but rare in Europeans and Africans (<1%). In contrast, *TPMT* non-WT is popular in Europeans (8.0%) and Americans (13.3%) but relatively rare in Asians (<5.0%). Novel PGx variant, *CRIM1* rs3821169, demonstrates remarkably high minor allele frequency (T=0.255) and carrier prevalence (43.7%, 220/504) in East Asians. Table 2 also shows that 6.5% of East Asians harbor homozygous *CRIM1* rs3821169 variant, which can hardly be found in other populations (<1.0%). In contrast, *IL6* rs13306435 is widely distributed with the highest carrier frequency of 15.0% in Americans and 3.0% among Asian and European populations. It is rare in South Asian and African populations (<1.0%). The carrier frequency of both *IL6*-and-*CRIM1* variants were 2.0% and 1.2% of East Asian and American populations, respectively. ### Single- and multi-gene prediction performances of *IL6* and *CRIM1* We performed ROC analysis of GVB-based single- and multi-gene models for predicting the last-cycle 6-MP DIP (%) using 240 both WTs for *NUDT15* and *TPMT* to control their long-known PGx effects. Figure 3 demonstrates that (b) GVB*CRIM1* outperformed (a) GVB*IL6* in predicting DIPs at all cutoff levels, probably due to the higher variant frequency of *CRIM1* over *IL6* in the study population. Two-gene model GVB*IL6,CRIM1* (Fig. 3(c)) consistently outperformed each of the single gene models (GVB*IL6* and GVB*CRIM1*) at all cutoffs. For comprehensive evaluation of all PGx interactions among *NUDT15, TPMT, IL6*, and *CRIM1*, we performed comprehensive ROC analysis using the whole 320 pediatric ALL patients (Fig. 4). Among the four single-gene model in Figure 4 (a, b, d, e) GVB*NUDT15* outperformed others at all cutoffs, probably due to *NUDT15*‘s high prevalence and strong metabolic impact of on thiopurine toxicity. Two-gene models (Fig. 4 (c, f)) consistently outperformed each of the corresponding single-gene counterparts, i.e., AUCs of GVB*NUDT15,TPMT* > GVB*NUT15* > GVB*TPMT* and of GVB*IL6,CRIM1* > GVB*CRIM1* > GVB*IL6* at all cutoff levels. Three-gene models created by adding *IL6* or *CRIM1* to the traditional *NUDT15* and *TPMT* model also consistently improved the prediction accuracies (Fig. 4(g, h)). The final four-gene model in Figure 4(i) outperformed all other models in predicting DIPs at all cutoff levels. Moreover, it is worth noting that the ROC curves across eight DIP cutoffs in Figure 4 exhibited ‘dose-response relationships’, i.e., GVB score’s prediction power (measured by AUC) increases as a function of the severity of thiopurine intolerance (measured by DIP). For instance, the final four-gene model’s AUC increases as a function of decreasing DIP (%) (i.e., AUC<15% = 0.757, AUC<25% = 0.748, AUC<35% = 0.711, AUC<45% = 0.716, AUC<60% = 0.646, and AUC<80% = 0.592 in a descending order, Fig. 4(i)). ### Evaluation of clinical validity and utility of star allele and GVB method We systematically compared the clinical utility as well as clinical validity of traditional star (*) allele-based and GVB-based methods for preventing thiopurine toxicity. Table 3 demonstrates the measures of clinical validity, i.e., sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, and of potential population impact (or clinical utility), i.e., RR, PAF, NNT, and NNG along with pharmacogenetic association (odds ratio (OR) of different prediction modes [14]. Because no designated star allele for *IL6* or *CRIM1* is available yet, star allele-based molecular phenotyping was not applicable for these novel genes. We used GVB method. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/T3) Table 3. Contingency Tables for predicting thiopurine intolerance (DIP < 25%) of two-, three-, and four-gene models in pediatric ALL patients (*N*=320). GVB*NUDT15,TPMT* slightly outperformed STAR*NUDT15,TPMT*, the classical star (*) allele-based molecular phenotyping (Table 3(a, b)). Three-gene models (i.e., GVB*NUDT15,TPMT,IL6* and GVB*NUDT15,TPMT,CRIM1** in Table 3(c) and (d)) also outperformed the two-gene models. Four-gene interplay model, GVB*NUDT15,TPMT,IL6,CRIM1*^(*CRIM1,IL6*), presented the best performances for all of the eight measures of clinical validity and potential population impact (except specificity) (marked in bold numbers in Table 3(g)). Addition of *IL6* and *CRIM1* to create the final four-gene model integrating both common and rare alleles markedly improved PAF from 0.36 to 0.58 as well as RR (3.29 to 5.73) and OR (4.21 to 8.06). PAF is the proportion of events that is attributed to the PGx risk factor or the maximum percentage of cases that can be prevented if individuals who test positive for the PGx variants receive different treatments. Of the 44 adverse events (DIP<25%), it might have prevented eight more patients from 23 to 31 than traditional star (*) allele-based method (STAR*NUDT15,TPMT*, Table 3(a) vs. (f)). The number needed to genotype (NNG) is the number of patients that has to be genotyped to prevent one patient from having an adverse event. The NNG of 20 and an NNT of 5 of the traditional STAR*NUDT15,TPMT* mean that for every 20 patients that are genotyped, 5 patients will learn that they test positive and need to receive alternative treatment to prevent adverse event (DIP<25%) in one. Adding *IL6* and *CRIM1* to the traditional *NUDT15* and *TPMT* testing to create GVB*NUDT15,TPMT,IL6,CRIM1*^(*CRIM1,IL6*) may require only 12.5 patients (37.5% improvement of NNG) to be genotyped to return 3.7 test-positive patients (26.0% improvement of NNT) receiving alternative treatment to prevent adverse event in one (Table 2(g)). ## Discussion Interplay between *IL6* and *CRIM1* variants on thiopurine-induced hematological toxicity was investigated in 320 pediatric ALL patients. *IL6* has been known to behavior as a neutrophil protector. There was an inverse correlation between *IL6* levels and neutrophil apoptosis (*r* = (-)0.855 and *p* < 0.007), but this was not the case for other cytokines. The antiapoptotic effect of osteomyelitis sera was reversed with anti-*IL6* antibodies and was reproduced with recombinant human *IL6* [28]. Decreased neutrophil counts have been reported in trials of tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients [29, 30]. Tocilizumab is a recombinant monoclonal Ab that binds to soluble and membrane-bound *IL-6R* (Interleukin 6 Receptor) and inhibits *IL6* signaling pathways [31, 32]. Preclinical studies suggest that the reduction in neutrophil count may result from increased margination of circulating neutrophils into the bone marrow rather than from the drug-induced neutropenia observed with myelotoxic drugs [33, 34]. *CRIM1* (Cysteine-Rich Transmembrane BMP Regulator 1) is a cell-surface transmembrane protein that resembles developmentally important proteins which are known to interact with bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). A role of *CRIM1* in drug resistance has been suggested by previous studies [35, 36] revealing that the level of mRNA expression of *CRIM1* is high in resistant leukemic cells. This affects the levels of BMPs, suggesting that *CRIM1* regulates the growth and differentiation of hematopoietic cells. It is suggested that the interplay of *IL6* and *CRIM1* on thiopurine-induced hematological toxicity may be a pharmacodynamic effect on adverse reaction while the long-known *NUDT15* and *TPMT* are pharmacokinetic enzymes for metabolizing thiopurines. Seven (6.1%) of the 115 all-WT patients still suffered from thiopurine toxicity. Supplementary Table S1 lists further candidate variants determined by analyzing the all WTs (*N*=115, *p*<0.05 by one-sided Student *T*-test). Of the three carriers of *FSIP2* rs191083003, two (66.7%) exhibited DIP < 25% (8.82, 21.88, and 48.54%, *N*=3). We found one more *FSIP2* rs191083003 carrier among the homozygous-*CRIM* group, who exhibited the lowest DIP of 6.94% among the whole 320 ALL cohort. The low frequency (1.25%, 4/320) of *FSIP2* rs191083003 prohibited any conclusion but to await further elucidation. Overall, the interplay of *IL6* and *CRIM1* along with the long-known *NUDT15* and *TPMT* improved PAF from 36.4% to 58.2% by considering PGx variants only in an East Asian cohort of pediatric ALL (*N*=320). The quantitative analytic approach of the present study may be applied to other ethnic groups for further discovery and evaluation of thiopurine-toxicity pharmacogenomics. View this table: [Supplementary Table S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/25/2020.07.21.20158931/T4) Supplementary Table S1. Candidate variants among 115 ALL patients of all wild types for *NUDT15, TPMT, IL6* and *CRIM1*. Americans show the highest allele frequency of *IL6* rs13306435 (A=0.078) among all ethnic groups (Global A=0.020, the 1000 Genomes Project, Phase 3 [9]). This high inter-ethnic variability may partially explain why rs13306435 has not yet been discovered as a biomarker for thopurine toxicity. Current research is mostly biased towards Europeans [37]. *NUDT15* rs116855232 variant, which was recently discovered in the Korean population as a strong predictor of thopurine toxicit [3], shows the highest allele frequency in East Asians (T=0.095) among all ethnic groups (Global T=0,040). Pharmacogenes by definition, unlike pathogenic disease genes, do not have an overt phenotype unless exposed to drugs. The absence of detrimental phenotypic effect from phrmacogenes may have permitted wide inter-ethnic variability and/or diversity across different ethnic groups under various evolutionary selection pressures. The CPIC guideline for thiopurine treatment for pediatric ALL is based on star (*) allele-based haplotypes with designated molecular phenotypes of *NUDT15* and *TPMT* [6, 7]. However, CPIC does not provide general standard rules of how to combine multi-gene interactions of the categorically classified star-alleles. Novel genes like *IL6* and *CRIM1* have no designated star alleles nor molecular phenotypes yet. Quantitative GVB method has benefits over categorical star allele-based approaches. GVB quantitates single- or multi-gene PGx burden of common, rare, and novel variants into a single score to provide a comprehensive framework for further PGx discovery and evaluation of many gene interactions. A conventional single variant-based association test of rare variants requires infeasible magnitude of sample sizes [38], but approaches that aggregate common, rare, and novel variants jointly will substantially reduce a required effective sample sizes [39]. In contrast to traditional haplotyping-based method, GVB assigns a gene-level score for each pharmacogene without using population data and hence to enable unbiased PGx method especially for under-studied subpopulations. ## Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. ## Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ## Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. ## Ethical statement The study was approved by the AMC Review Boards, the SMC Review Boards, and the SNUH Review Boards. Informed written consents for blood sampling and analyses were obtained from all participants. ## Acknowledgements This research was supported by a grant (16183MFDS541) from Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in 2019. * Received July 21, 2020. * Revision received July 21, 2020. * Accepted July 25, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Schaeffeler E, Jaeger SU, Klumpp V, Yang JJ, Igel S, Hinze L, et al. Impact of NUDT15 genetics on severe thiopurine-related hematotoxicity in patients with European ancestry. Genet Med. 2019;21(9):2145–50. 2. 2.Yang, Jun J., et al. “Inherited NUDT15 variant is a genetic determinant of mercaptopurine intolerance in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.” Journal of clinical oncology 33.11 (2015): 1235. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzMy8xMS8xMjM1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMjUvMjAyMC4wNy4yMS4yMDE1ODkzMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 3. 3.Yang S-K, Hong M, Baek J, Choi H, Zhao W, Jung Y et al. A common missense variant in NUDT15 confers susceptibility to thiopurine-induced leukopenia. Nature Genetics 2014; 46: 1017–1020. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3060&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25108385&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 4. 4.Moriyama, Takaya, et al. “NUDT15 polymorphisms alter thiopurine metabolism and hematopoietic toxicity.” Nature genetics 48.4 (2016): 367–373. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3508&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26878724&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 5. 5.Relling MV, Klein TE. CPIC: Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium of the Pharmacogenomics Research Network. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(3):464–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/clpt.2010.279&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21270786&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287439600030&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Relling MV, Gardner EE, Sandborn WJ, Schmiegelow K, Pui CH, Yee SW, et al. Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guidelines for thiopurine methyltransferase genotype and thiopurine dosing: 2013 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(4):324–5. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/clpt.2013.4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23422873&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 7. 7.Relling MV, Schwab M, Whirl-Carrillo M, Suarez-Kurtz G, Pui CH, Stein CM, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for Thiopurine Dosing Based on TPMT and NUDT15 Genotypes: 2018 Update. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(5):1095–105. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cpt.1304&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Park Y, Kim H, Seo H, Choi JY, Ma Y, Yun S, Min BJ, Seo ME, Yoo KH, Kang HJ, Im HJ, Kim JH. A CRIM1 genetic variant is associated with thiopurine-induced neutropenia in leukemic patients with both wild-type NUDT15 and TPMT. Journal of Translational Medicine (in press) 9. 9.Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526(7571):68–74. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature15393&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26432245&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 10. 10.Lee K. H., Baik S. Y., Lee S. Y., Park C. H., Park P. J., Kim J. H. (2016). Genome sequence variability predicts drug precautions and withdrawals from the market. PLoS ONE 11, e0162135–0162115. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162135 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0162135&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Park Y, Kim H, Choi JY, Yun S, Min BJ, Seo ME, et al. Star Allele-Based Haplotyping versus Gene-Wise Variant Burden Scoring for Predicting 6-Mercaptopurine Intolerance in Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Patients. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:654. 12. 12.Park Y, Seo H, Ryu BY, Kim JH. Gene-wise variant burden and genomic characterization of nearly every gene. Pharmacogenomics (in press) 13. 13.Park J, Lee SY, Baik SY, Park CH, Yoon JH, Ryu BY, Kim JH. Gene-wise burden of coding variants correlates to noncoding pharmacogenetic risk variants. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Apr 27;21(9). pii: E3091 14. 14. ECM Tonk, D Gurwitz, A-H Maitland-van der Zee, and ACJW Janssens. Assessment of pharmacogenetic tests: presenting measures of clinical validity and potential population impact in association studies. Pharmacogenomics J 2017 Jul; 17(4): 386–392 15. 15.Lange BJ, Bostrom BC, Cherlow JM, Sensel MG, La MK, Rackoff W, et al. Double-delayed intensification improves event-free survival for children with intermediate-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. Blood. 2002;99(3):825–33. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJsb29kam91cm5hbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI5OS8zLzgyNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA3LzI1LzIwMjAuMDcuMjEuMjAxNTg5MzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 16. 16.Matloub Y, Lindemulder S, Gaynon PS, Sather H, La M, Broxson E, et al. Intrathecal triple therapy decreases central nervous system relapse but fails to improve event-free survival when compared with intrathecal methotrexate: results of the Children’s Cancer Group (CCG) 1952 study for standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia, reported by the Children’s Oncology Group. Blood. 2006;108(4):1165–73. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJsb29kam91cm5hbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTA4LzQvMTE2NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA3LzI1LzIwMjAuMDcuMjEuMjAxNTg5MzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 17. 17.Maloney KW, Devidas M, Wang C, Mattano LA, Friedmann AM, Buckley P, et al. Outcome in Children With Standard-Risk B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Results of Children’s Oncology Group Trial AALL0331. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(6):602–12. 18. 18.Nachman J, Sather HN, Cherlow JM, Sensel MG, Gaynon PS, Lukens JN, et al. Response of children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with and without cranial irradiation: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(3):920–30. [Abstract](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjE2LzMvOTIwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMjUvMjAyMC4wNy4yMS4yMDE1ODkzMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 19. 19.Rhee ES, Kim H, Kang SH, Yoo JW, Koh KN, Im HJ, et al. Outcome and Prognostic Factors in Pediatric Precursor T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Single-Center Experience. Clinical Pediatric Hematology-Oncology. 2018;25(2):116–27. 20. 20.Kim H, Kang HJ, Kim HJ, Jang MK, Kim NH, Oh Y, et al. Pharmacogenetic analysis of pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a possible association between survival rate and ITPA polymorphism. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45558. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23029095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 21. 21.Kim H, Seo H, Park Y, Min BJ, Seo ME, Park KD, et al. APEX1 Polymorphism and Mercaptopurine-Related Early Onset Neutropenia in Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(3):823–34. 22. 22.Stephens, Matthew, and Paul Scheet. “Accounting for decay of linkage disequilibrium in haplotype inference and missing-data imputation.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 76.3 (2005): 449–462. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/428594&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15700229&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226851900008&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.Stephens, Matthew, Nicholas J. Smith, and Peter Donnelly. “A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 68.4 (2001): 978–989 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/319501&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11254454&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167666000019&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Ng PC. SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Research 2003; 31: 3812–3814. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkg509&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12824425&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183832900117&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Fawcett, Tom. “An introduction to ROC analysis.” Pattern recognition letters 27.8 (2006): 861–874. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237462800002&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Robin, Xavier, et al. “pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves.” BMC bioinformatics 12.1 (2011): 77. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2105-12-77&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21414208&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 27. 27.Youden, William J. “Index for rating diagnostic tests.” Cancer 3.1 (1950): 32–35. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15405679&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1950UD97200004&link_type=ISI) 28. 28.Asensi, Víctor, et al. “In vivo interleukin-6 protects neutrophils from apoptosis in osteomyelitis.” Infection and immunity 72.7 (2004): 3823–3828. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiaWFpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjcyLzcvMzgyMyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA3LzI1LzIwMjAuMDcuMjEuMjAxNTg5MzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 29. 29.Schiff MH, Kremer JM, Jahreis A. et al. Integrated safety in tocilizumab clinical trials. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:1–13. 30. 30.Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R. et al. Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet 2013;381:1541–50. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60250-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23515142&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000318609600029&link_type=ISI) 31. 31.Mihara M, Kasutani K, Okazaki M. et al. Tocilizumab inhibits signal transduction mediated by both mIL-6R and sIL-6R, but not by the receptors of other members of IL-6 cytokine family. Int Immunopharmacol 2005;5:1731–40. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.intimp.2005.05.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16102523&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231455400008&link_type=ISI) 32. 32.Nishimoto N, Terao K, Mima T. et al. Mechanisms and pathologic significances in increase in serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble IL-6 receptor after administration of an anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and Castleman disease. Blood 2008;112:3959–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJsb29kam91cm5hbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTEyLzEwLzM5NTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNy8yNS8yMDIwLjA3LjIxLjIwMTU4OTMxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 33. 33.Suwa T, Hogg JC, English D, van Eeden SF. Interleukin-6 induces demargination of intravascular neutrophils and shortens their transit in marrow. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000;279:pH2954–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 34. 34.Hashizume M, Higuchi Y, Uchiyama Y, Mihara M. IL-6 plays an essential role in neutrophilia under inflammation. Cytokine 2011;54:92–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cyto.2011.01.007&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21292497&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289020000015&link_type=ISI) 35. 35.Prenkert M, Uggla B, Tidefelt U, Strid H. CRIM1 is expressed at higher levels in drug-resistant than in drug-sensitive myeloid leukemia HL60 cells. pAnticancer Res. 2010;30(10):4157–61. 36. 36.Ziliak D, Gamazon ER, Lacroix B, Kyung Im H, Wen Y, Huang RS. Genetic variation that predicts platinum sensitivity reveals the role of miR-193b* in chemotherapeutic susceptibility. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(9):2054–61. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6Im1vbGNhbnRoZXIiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTEvOS8yMDU0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMjUvMjAyMC4wNy4yMS4yMDE1ODkzMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 37. 37.Sirugo G, Williams SM, Tishkoff SA. The Missing Diversity in Human Genetic Studies. Cell 2019; 177: 26–31. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) 38. 38.Bansal V, Libiger O, Torkamani A, Schork NJ. Statistical Analysis Strategies for Association Studies Involving Rare Variants. Nat Rev Genet 2010 Nov; 11(11): 773–785. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrg2867&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20940738&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000283052800011&link_type=ISI) 39. 39.Witte. Rare Genetic Variants and Treatment Response: Sample Size and Analysis Issues. Stat Med. 2012;31(25):3041–3050. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.5428&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22736504&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F25%2F2020.07.21.20158931.atom)