In an era of newly emerging cases of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, research is vital for both the medical and economic well-being of humanity. Pharmacogenomics has laidthegroundworkfor the identification of potential genes in cancer progression and treatment outcome investigations. Researchers are increasingly discovering heterogeneity in the efficacy and toxicity responses of drugmetabolizing enzymes (DMEs) in diverse patient populations receiving anti-cancer therapy. DMEs comprise of Phase I (Cytochrome P450s) and Phase II (glutathione-S-transferases (GSTs), UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs), and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenases (DPD)enzymes. The main cause of disparity in DME treatment outcomes is genetic variation,which causes missense mutations leading to structural and kinetic properties of the enzyme. These modifications have a deleterious impact on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of drugs through multiple mechanisms. Presently, most cancer medicines are manufacturedin developed countries based on the genetic background of non-African subpopulations. Thus, these drugs may not be optimally effective or can cause adverse side effects. Even though heterogeneity in toxicity and efficacy of these drugs has been observed in African descent, the basis of this population variance remains partially understood. For instance,a deficiencyof DPD, the first-rate limiting metabolizing enzyme in the pyrimidinepathway, causes severe toxicity when exposed to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy. However, minimum studies have been conducted to unravel itsmolecular mechanismwhich may unravel the observed drug treatment outcomes.The aim of this pharmacogenomics study was to determine the underlying mechanism by which DPD missense mutations, which are associated with an African ancestry subpopulation, provoke dysfunctional 5-FU metabolism, resulting in drug toxicity. This knowledge will be critical in designing drug modulators to aid in the restoration of DPD function, a hallmark of precision medicine. Therefore, in the first part of the research we identified and reviewed the general role of Phase I and Phase II cancer drug metabolizing enzymes. We then used World Health Organization (WHO) essential medicine and drug.com to authenticate the usage of 5-FU as an anti-cancer treatment agent. The 3D structure and chemical structure of the agent was then downloaded from the Drug bank. Subsequently, Human Mutation Analysis - Variant Analysis PORtal (HUMA) and Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) were used to obtain data on DPD non-synonymous genetic variants. Additionally, the aggregate information of DPD missense mutations and their relation to human health were extracted from ClinVar and Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmKGB). This information, along with additional data from single nucleotide polymorphisms (dbSNP), 1000 Genomes Project and Exome Sequencing Project (ESP MAF) considering variants classified based on their minor allele frequency (MAF) of 0.001, as well as research articles, consolidated information on missense mutations associated with African subpopulations. Finally, the wild type (WT) and detected mutation sequences were obtained from the Universal Protein Resources database (UniProt). However, because the 3D structure of human DPD was missing, the dimeric wild type (WT) human 3-dimensional (3D) structure was modeled via MODELLER using the pig’s structure as a template. PRIMO, HHpred, and the Protein Data Bank (PDB) were all used to locate the suitable template. As a result, six clinical (C29R, M166V, Y186C, S534N, I543V, and D949V) and thirteen non-clinical (S201R, K259E, D342N, D432N, S492L, R592Q, A664S, G674D, A721T, V732G, T768K, R886C, and L993R) mutations were discovered. Using AMBER tools, we then determined accurate force field parameters for each monomer of DPD protein's Fe2+ centers. Following the creation of each mutation model structure in Discovery Studio, the resulting AMBER force field parameters were inferred. For each model structure, a drug free (inactive/open-conformation) and drug bound (active/closed-conformation) model structure was created (WT and mutations). The model structures were validated using the consensus of three validation programs, namely ERRAT, PROCHECK, and ProSA. Similarly, the impact on structural functionalities was predicted by consensus from Variant Analysis Porta (VAPOR) web server, which include three support vector machines (SVM)-based tools; PhD-SNP, MUpro, and I-Mutation. After protonation in the H++ web server, the six clinical and thirteen non-clinical (six active site and seven non-active site) mutations identified were then exposed to 600 ns molecular dynamic (MD) simulation. The non-clinical data was divided into two categories to better understand the impact of the mutation based on its position in the protein: six catalytic-domain (R592Q, A664S, G674D, A721T, V732G, and T768K) and seven remote (S201R, K259E, D342N, D432N, S492L, R886C, and L993R) missense mutations. The post-MD analysis was done using the typical existing computational global investigations [RMSD, all versus all RMSD, RMSF, RG, hydrogen bonds (H-bonds) and dynamic cross correlation (DCC)]. In addition, we used in silico tools newly developed within the Research Unit in Bioinformatics (RUBI) group, such as comparative essential dynamics (ED)-principal component analysis and dynamic residue network (DRN) multi-metric [betweenness centrality (BC), closeness centrality (CC), degree of centrality (DC), eigen-centrality (EC) and Katz centrality (KC)] analysis algorithms. From the analysis, it was observed that the loop regions of the mutation proteins had increased loop flexibility, particularly around the catalytic loop, which could account for the enhanced asymmetric behavior of the mutation’s monomers compared to the WT. Notably, the A664S mutant showed relatively lower fluctuations, deviating from the observed heightened...