genomeboy.com

Rare genetic variants that cause disease may be masked by common ones that don’t:

Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, says “this may make it challenging to identify the functional variant within an association”. Teri Manolio, a population geneticist at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, writes via email that “if their simulations are correct, and I suspect they are,” they suggest researchers will have to sequence a lot of DNA, up to 10 million bases, surrounding common variants.

Goldstein says that the work suggests more whole-genome sequencing will be needed in more targeted populations of affected individuals and families. In a sense, he says the issues being raised signal the need for shift from the powerful statistics of GWA studies to work more focused on specific genes in affected families and how they function biologically. As Goldstein puts it, “the importance of the family has really come back again.”

 To do:

1) Read it and weep

2) Buy stock in sequencing companies

For those few of you who are not regular readers of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, I call your attention to the current issue. It features a debate between those who believe genetic risk information ought to be available to anyone with $985 who wants it, and paternalistic men in white coats defending the status quo those who believe it ought to be vetted by randomized clinical trials.

Gulcher and Stefansson:

The man who knows the nature of his disease is more likely to seek appropriate help to treat it and by the same logic, a man who knows the risk he has of developing a disease is more likely to seek help to mitigate the risk. It is also important to recognize that by learning about the genetic risk you have of diseases, you are simply learning certain aspects about who you are.

Ransohoff and Khoury:

If [randomized clinical trial] data are considered necessary to understand benefits vs. harms for a particular application, then so be it…RCTs may be needed indeed, unless we can be satisfied that the new test detects the same spectrum and subtype of disease as the old test and that intervention response is similar across the spectrum of disease [27]. These principles need to be applied, on a case-by-case basis, to personal genomic tests.

Okay then. We’ll see y’all in about eight years.

(Hat tip: Dana Waring)

Jason Bobe, DIYBio co-founder and Personal Genome Project Director of Community, on NPR:

RAZ: And so, are most of the people who are sort of these citizen scientists, I mean, are they actual scientists, or are they amateurs?

Mr. BOBE: It’s actually a wide range of different types of people. There are quite a few graduate students and professional scientists who moonlight as a citizen scientist. And we’re actually starting to see groups in various cities setting up laboratory space that’s a shared laboratory. They sort of pull their resources like clay potters have done with kilns or woodworkers have done with expensive lathes.

Listen to all of it here.

deCODEme is offering 23andMe customers free uploads to its site. Daniel has details and analysis:

So, why the free offer? I’m guessing deCODEme is gambling (quite reasonably) that offering free uploads will attract a non-trivial number of 23andMe customers over to deCODEme’s interface. That then provides the Icelanders with an opportunity to give people a fair trial of their own interface, and hopefully to impress them with the quality and accessibility of the data provided.

What then? Well, bear in mind that the entire chip-based personal genomics industry is really just a transient place-holder for the real deal: interpretation of complete genome sequences. All of the personal genomics companies currently out there are simply positioning themselves for a share of the potentially enormous sequencing interpretation market that will emerge within the next couple of years as the cost of DNA sequencing plummets.

It’s therefore crucial for deCODEme to place itself in the minds of likely early adopters of sequencing products as a serious and reliable player in the interpretation field. Right now it’s failing to do that, due to the extraordinary market dominance of 23andMe - but pulling over customers with this free offer will help.

I’m ready for the “potentially enormous sequencing interpretation market” to emerge anytime now…

As “the first genomic generation” we will set the rules that many future generations may follow. Will we treat our genomes like our faces, which we share publicly even though they reveal details about our health, ancestry, and personality? Or will we be forced to hide them from view? Knowing our DNA could make us think of ourselves more mechanically, and yet increase our humanity by embracing our diversity. It could render us less mysterious, yet more awe-inspiring. Our genomes are a vast future resource. How we handle them will define us as a species—not as a fuzzy average, but with our individualism evident in detail.

- George Church in Newsweek

Jenny Reardon on those who choose to opt out:

Only significant effort will achieve the participation of the broader and more diverse range of human beings required for [genomic] research. Understanding why some people participate, and many do not, will demand understanding the specific ways in which genomic ideas and practices form from and re-form social practices of racism and inequality–issues that remain with us despite the last decade of proclamations about the anti-racist and equalitarian features of genomics.

At Nature News, there is something of a eulogy/finger-pointing festival for deCODE and indeed, for personal genomics in general:

…Some other researchers, however, say that deCODE’s scientific approach is to blame. The company worked to mine genetic data for common variations linked to disease through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and some experts note that these studies have turned up only a small fraction of the variation that causes disease. “The translation to commercial value is just not very direct,” says [Duke’s David] Goldstein, “in part because it is now clear that GWAS is not the tool of choice for unlocking the genetics of most common diseases.”

***

…companies that focus exclusively on personal genomics services, such as the one sold by deCODE as deCODEme, might find themselves in more trouble, [Leerink Swann’s Isaac] Ro says. The services are not seen as a medical necessity, diminishing their appeal, particularly in difficult economic times. This year the personal-genomics company 23andMe, based in Mountain View, California, announced two rounds of lay-offs, lost one of its two co-founders and announced a series of product and price restructurings.

“There’s no clinical trial supporting the value of these results, so it’s really recreational genomics,” Ro says. Large academic centres, not consumers, will find value in the rich genetic databases; 23andMe has tried to move into the research market, but because its data come from a self-selected customer population their value is limited, he says.

Here we go, still trotting out the same tired tropes. I agree: GWAS is of limited value and this probably contributed to deCODE’s demise. But whatever deCODE’s fate, if whole human genomes can be sequenced for < $2000, isn’t it about time we stopped kicking GWAS’s ever-stiffening corpse?  Second, just because something is not a medical necessity, does it follow that it is worthless? Ask the participants in the REVEAL study or anyone else who’s received an APOE genotype because she WANTED to know. Ask the people who learned something about their hereditary breast cancer risk from 23andMe. Is that recreation? What about abacavir hypersensitivity? And finally:  yes, DTC genomics customers are self-selected. So are the 50,000 PatientsLikeMe participants. So are the 10,000 in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. So are the 15,000 on the Personal Genome Project waiting list. So are the 400,000 in the UK Biobank. Maybe we should just toss out all of that data, too.

From a compelling story in the New York Times Magazine:

In an age of DNA, when biological relationships can be identified with certainty, it can seem absurd to hew so closely to a centuries-old idea of paternity. And yet basing paternity decisions solely on genetics places the nonbiological father’s welfare above the child’s. Phil Reilly, a lawyer who is also a clinical geneticist, has been wrestling with the policy implications of DNA testing for years, and even he is stumped about how society should manage the problem that men like Mike face. “We’re at a point in our society where the DNA molecule is ascendant, and it’s very much in the public’s consciousness that this is a powerful way to identify relationships,” Reilly says. “Yet at the same time, more people than ever are adopting children, showing that parents can very much love a child who is not their own. The difference here for many men is the combination of hurt and rage over the deceit, the fact that they’re twice beaten. I can see both sides of this argument. As a nation, we’re still in search of what the most ethical policy should be. Every solution is imperfect.”

The Personal Genome Project includes disclosure of nonpaternity as one of the explicit risks of participation. That said, having been warned is probably not much consolation to people who discover certain surprising things about their families.