Over at Genomes Unzipped, my esteemed colleague Carl Anderson has his first ever blog post: an exploration of the various ways in which the effects of genetic variants on disease risk can vary from person to person.
This potential variation has been the cause of much angst among critics of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry. However, as Carl notes, DTC testing companies generally do a pretty good job of conveying the uncertainty associated with one source of variation (differences in population background), and can't really be blamed for not accounting for the effects of environment and age given the currently weak scientific literature in this area.
However, it's worth noting that the current literature does provide some promising hints that variation in effect sizes may not be as large as originally feared. As Carl notes, one recent study in PLoS Genetics found that genetic factors associated with type 2 diabetes show no compelling evidence for varying effect sizes between cohorts of European Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Japanese Americans, and Native Hawaiians.
Larger samples and a broader range of diseases will be required to confirm how widely this pattern holds, but it's tentatively reassuring for individuals of non-European ancestry: in most cases, risk estimates from your 23andMe data based on European cohorts will probably still be broadly applicable even if you're one of the majority of human beings who aren't descended from pallid European ancestors.
Moving forward, we can expect very large longitudinal studies (such as the half-million strong UK Biobank) to provide more precise estimates of the interactions between genetic risk factors and environmental variables in individuals from different populations. In the meantime, the generic advice I give to all genetic testing customers applies: read everything you can, treat the caveats seriously, and take every risk estimate as provisional and uncertain (with some being far more uncertain than others, of course!). We're still at the beginning of the genetic revolution, and uncertainty is simply the price you pay for getting in early.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The successes of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in identifying genetic risk factors for common diseases have been heavily publicised in the mainstream media - barely a week goes by these days that we don't hear about another genome scan that has identified new risk genes for diabetes, lupus…
Update 14:35 EDT 04/08/10: I just received a phone call from a 23andMe representative indicating that these rumours are not true; more details to follow once I have a written statement.
Update 17:26 EDT 04/08/10: Here is the written statement from 23andMe's PR firm:
We will continue to work…
Well, it's a little late, but I finally have a list of what I see as some of the major trends that will play out in the human genomics field in 2009 - both in terms of research outcomes, and shifts in the rapidly-evolving consumer genomics industry.
For genetics-savvy readers a lot of these…
The UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has published the long-awaited report (PDF) from its inquiry into genomic medicine.
Mark Henderson at The Times has been busy today, putting out three excellent pieces on the report: a summary of the major implications, an opinion piece…