Assessing Breast Cancer Risk: Beyond the Angelina Effect

On April 30 at 7:30 PM,  I’ll be part of a panel on Health Link with Benita Zahn, WMHT TV, to discuss the genetics behind the “Angelina Jolie effect” that has catalyzed testing for the BRCA mutations that increase risk for breast … Continue reading »

The post Assessing Breast Cancer Risk: Beyond the Angelina Effect appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.

Autism Gene Discovery Recalls Alzheimer’s and BRCA1 Stories

Discovery of a new gene behind autism cleverly combines genetic techniques new and classic. Autism has been difficult to characterize genetically. It is probably a common endpoint for many genotypes, and is a multifactorial (“complex”) trait. That is, hundreds of genes … Continue reading »

The post Autism Gene Discovery Recalls Alzheimer’s and BRCA1 Stories appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.

Designing exon-specific primers for the human genome

A common task facing geneticists is to assay for sequence changes at particular locations in genes. These assays are often looking for changes in the coding exon of genes, and the target sequences are typically amplified using PCR from genomic … Continue reading

Genetic Testing For All: Is It Eugenics?

ATCG's Image with Group of PeopleIn recent weeks, there’s been talk of three types of genetic testing transitioning from targeted populations to the general public: carrier screens for recessive diseases, tests for BRCA mutations, and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) to spot extra chromosomes in fetuses …

The post Genetic Testing For All: Is It Eugenics? appeared first on PLOS Blogs Network.

Personal Genomics & The Burden of Knowing

Like many bioinformatists, biologists, scientists, and technologists I am very interested in personal genomics. I have kept track of the start ups that are doing personal SNPs analysis and have been eagerily waiting for sequencing costs to drop to the point were the $1000 genome is possible. I envisage everyone having their personal genome done and programs to analyse the data being so widespread that even a "My Genome Facts" Facebook application would not seem out of place.

Of course I have read lots about ethical worries about how the data could be mis-used or how the public can not handle the probabalities of having a certain disease. Personally, I have always thought these were blown a bit out of proportion and that personal genomics will in general be a good thing. More data is better right?

Well, I just read an article called "The Burden of Knowing" by Catherine Elton in the Boston Magazine and it really made me reconsider my previous thoughts. Elton starts out explaining about personal genomics and specifically about Knome, the first company to do complete personal genome sequencing. She then starts to delve into her personal choices regarding her susectibility to having the BRCA1 gene. The article is extremely well written, and unless I am becoming a complete softy, quite sobering.

A small excerpt that I really enjoyed was this:
The counselors then mentioned another option: having my ovaries taken out and my breasts removed. Here we were, talking about science's ability to look along a submicroscopic piece of DNA, searching for missing letters on a strip of a gene, and yet if science found that letters were missing—if the gene had the cancer-risk mutation—the best it could do was amputate or sterilize. These options seemed as though they should have been filed away in a medieval remedy book, somewhere between leeches and bloodletting.

So did the story change my view on personal genomics? No not completely, but I do think that getting my genome sequenced might not be as fun as I first thought. Too bad there are not many positive attributes linked to genes like "gene variant Y will allow you to live a long life despite your lack of physical exercise" or "you have an improved version of the alcohol dehydrogenase gene, so feel free to drink more beer".