My 23andMe DNA Results
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
23andme's disease risk indicators aren't overly meaningful, because they only test for a few SNPs and true disease risk is made up of many SNPs and multi nucleotide mutations and deletions, as well as levels of miRNA expression. Many of the mutations are only studied in caucasians. For now, most genetic tests are interesting rather than explicitly useful. Five or seven years from now, after Google's 100,000 genome project is complete and you can get a whole genome test for $1000, genetic testing will be very useful. Let's just hope that the results of that study are completely public.
A possible explanation for this is that that all of the alleles that are tested in genome wide association studies are found relatively frequently in the population - it may be that rare alleles exist that confer far greater risk e.g. 10-100 increase and it is these that mediate the majority of the inherited risk of a condition. These rare alleles could not be detected by a microarray based approach but would be identified by massive resequencing. A preliminary resequencing effort is already underway: http://www.1000genomes.org/ and within the next few years whole genome resequencing on an individual basis will become feasible with massively paralell techniques such as Selexa.
However, if the rapidly decreasing cost of genetic sequencing keeps up, then it will eventually be possible to create at home genome sequencers that feed into your home computer to analyze the data. The privacy paranoid will have to pay a significant premium for this privilege.
Also, a DNA extraction machine would have to be bundled with the at home sequencer, ideally in one machine, and DNA extraction machines are also too expensive for home use. Without a machine, DNA extraction involves proprietary solution combined with various steps of heating and centrifuging.
If there were actually demand for it, someone could throw together the equivalent of an open-source array reader kit for (guesing, but not without basis in fact) $10K or so. God knows it's faster and easier to work around Affy or Illumina's junkware with R than it is to get anything done with their binaries... but that would be silly because who outside of a hospital or lab really has that much use for one?
But sequencing-by-synthesis methods that can use WGA on small samples are the key to a truly accessible and useful map of an individual's genome. I don't really care how my genome differs from Craig Venter's; I want to know how it differs from itself as I get older, I want to know how it differs from itself as I am exposed to environmental factors, and I want to know how it differs from the baseline for my 'eigen-ancestry' in terms of disease risk.
There are so many statistical piles of shit that have already been stepped in (particularly WRT linkage analysis, but I'm sure we'll eventually see a good laffer from a GWAS of some sort now that they're all the rage) that I'd really rather have the tools to work on my own, thankyouverymuch...
Also reminds me of Dawkin's writing on a "Moore's Law" for genetics, basically saying that there's an exponential equation describing number of genes sequenced for a fixed cost.
Guess we've gotten at least to the point where $1000 buys one (apparently) meaningful information about your genetic structure.
Methinks I'll wait until the cost has fallen by another order of magnitude or so . . .