Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 228 posts

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#181

Post by cncrnd »

doke01 wrote: post #125

How can I get a mapping of my genetic data where no one but me gets the results?

I would like to know this as well. Does genome sequencing through providers like Dante Labs guarantee that the data is not stores and/or shared? Are some providers better about this than others, and if so which ones?

Also, once you have the data, are there tools to analyze your sequencing without resorting to a web service? I don't mind setting up instances or a cluster for this purpose.

I am thinking that if genome analysis keeps improving in the insights it can provide, we could get to a point where some outcomes are predicted with near certainty. This data would be worth...infinite amounts to insurance companies.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#182

Post by DangerousPie »

dayvid wrote: post #24

I asked 23andMe if there was any way to delete my genetic data from their site after the Equifax hack news. From their response: "23andMe and our third party genotyping laboratory will retain Genetic Information, date of birth, and sex as required for compliance with applicable legal obligations, including the U.S. Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), California Business and Professional…

This may be true, but I don't see how it applies to this story. You need to explicitly opt in for your data to be used for research. So if you have asked for your data to be deleted it would obviously not be used for this kind of work.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#184

Post by ig1 »

Retric wrote: post #130
ig1 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works, the chances of two people matching as identical (on the SNP tested by 23andme) by random is astronomically low - orders of magnitude higher than the total number of humans who've ever lived. Generally at a 7cM overlap you have 50:50 chance whether you're related to that person or not. Anything over say 150cM you're virtually certain to be related (ignoring endogamous populations). At 3,400cM…

You’re assuming a lot with those statistics. Paternity tests involve random ~50% of your dna. Sperm samples are generally contaminated and thus less clear cut. But, people’s relatives have been used in the past for these tests dropping the bar even further. However, being related genetically is not enough. Some people have twin siblings they don’t know about pointing out being related is not nessisarily mean you know…

Those aren't false positives in that they represent real genetic relationships (i.e they're identical by descent), as the database size increases you don't increase the false positive rate in any meaningful sense at higher match levels.

If you've got a identical twin then you're right that their child will be genetically indistinguishable from your child. But that's down to the nature of genetics rather than anything to do with the reliability of testing or database size.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#185

Post by jnurmine »

guntars wrote: post #162
sk5t wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for health insurance; not so for life insurance.

What’s wrong with a life insurance company getting a more accurate probability of me dying from some rare disease? Maybe my rates should be raised if there’s a higher risk of me kicking the bucket. This works both ways too - my DNA can reveal that I will likely live a long premium-paying life. Insurance companies make money by being accurate, not by under or overestimating the risks. If DNA helps them be more accurat…

Perhaps the insurance company will not give you an insurance at all if you are deemed a high enough genetic risk. Perhaps, while the main disease works its way, you will not be covered for the side effects (like pneumonia) either, as you have no insurance.

This might or might not be an issue now (regardless of the place of residence), but laws can always be changed. And societies can always develop to be more totalitarist, even up to extremes, and it is not like the collected data just vanishes when things start to slide. (Case in point: IBM's Hollerith machines and population records)

I was very curious about 23andme and really wanted to try it. After some due diligence I concluded it is not worth it because of privacy and other implications going forward. It is not what they do today, since they don't hide the obvious sharing and datamining, so if one joins them it is through informed consent. My concern was rather what kind of systems and policies they enable eventually in the future, after the information gets sold/shared enough times to anyone who can pay enough. At this point there is no control anymore in how (and by whom) the data gets used.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#186

Post by barking »

Friedduck wrote: post #183

I personally wouldn’t use their services for fear insurance companies obtain the data. Not just now but at any point in your life (through bankruptcy, change of ownership , etc.)

The genetically 'unhealthy' will flock for insurance which will increase premia and discourage the genetically 'healthy' from doing so. You cannot run a commercially viable life insurance in a situation where there isn't 'ultimate good faith'. One way or another testing will become compulsory for insurance.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#187

Post by mcculley »

jnurmine wrote: post #185
guntars wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with a life insurance company getting a more accurate probability of me dying from some rare disease? Maybe my rates should be raised if there’s a higher risk of me kicking the bucket. This works both ways too - my DNA can reveal that I will likely live a long premium-paying life. Insurance companies make money by being accurate, not by under or overestimating the risks. If DNA helps them be more accurat…

Perhaps the insurance company will not give you an insurance at all if you are deemed a high enough genetic risk. Perhaps, while the main disease works its way, you will not be covered for the side effects (like pneumonia) either, as you have no insurance. This might or might not be an issue now (regardless of the place of residence), but laws can always be changed. And societies can always develop to be more totalit…

How long do you think you will be able to keep your genome private?

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#188

Post by klmr »

mrfusion wrote: post #146
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #3

Make no mistake about what is happening here. GSK is buying access to all of the genetic data that 23andMe has. This is why I am wary to use any 23andMe type of service. "The partners plan to use 23andMe’s data to jointly discover drug targets." They will claim all kinds of protections of course, but it is only a matter of time until genetic data starts being resold.

Is the data really that useful? It’s just a bunch of snps. And you don’t know about what diseases the customers have (besides genetic diseases)

23andme does collect such data (on a voluntary basis). So lots of their data is annotated with phenotypes. The data is tremendously useful.

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#189

Post by berberous »

beaugunderson wrote: post #122
breck wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are services that will do whole genome seq for you for under $10k(and I assume won’t keep your data). You could then use Promethease for analysis. I’m unaware of any way you could do self-DNA testing at home unless you wanted to spend $100k+ on equipment, reagents, etc. The Nanopore might be relevant but I haven’t looked into it much.

Full Genomes Corporation[1] will do WGS at 30x for $1295, WGS at 20x for $900, and Long Read WGS (newer technology) for $2900. For Prime Day, Dante Labs[2] had a sale on a 30x WGS for $349; it's still on sale for $499. Once you have a WGS you might consider donating it to the Harvard Personal Genomes Project[3], Open Humans[4], or putting it on GitHub[5]. [1]: https://www.fullgenomes.com/whole-genome-sequencing/ [2]:…

Why is Dante much cheaper than Full Genomes?

What's the benefit of "Long Read WGS"?

Re: GlaxoSmithKline makes $300M investment in 23andMe, forms 50-50 R&D pact

#190

Post by berberous »

cncrnd wrote: post #179
fapjacks wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've purchased a handful of Dante Labs 30x WGS kits on Amazon over the last couple of days. You didn't hear it from me, but the kits are still on sale on Amazon for $349... ... And an additional secret $100 discount during checkout. This is $250 WGS at 30x coverage. It should be front-page news.

Are the results of WGS + analysis with promethease more insightful than the results of 23andMe?

Not for me. You obviously have more data, but like 23andme,I found very little of it to be actionable or useful. YMMV
Post reply on HN