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

FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

blog.23andme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#181

Post by selimthegrim »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #149
butisaidsudo wrote: post #4

> For several years, 23andMe has worked on demonstrating that its reports are easy to understand and analytically valid... I guess these are different reports, but I know a genetic counsellor who describes 23andMe's carrier screening tests as "the bane of their existence". Those reports seem not-so-easy to understand based on the patients she sees. One problem is that they warn that your offspring are at high risk fo…

Can we stop with the unsubstantiated heresay? What condition, what markers, what risk calculation is used? I recently tried to research these companies to help a friend, and theres a huge amount of innuendo out there along with a lack of detailed and up to date information. Even the companies seem to be in the dark. One example is I asked FTDNA to explain what the advantages might be to their autosomal only testing v…

Have you got any opinion's on FTDNA's new myOrigins? I think it might make some things harder to interpret for people without very good genealogical records.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#182

Post by selimthegrim »

wavefunction wrote: post #21
BurningFrog wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now they sell people only "ancestry" report for half the (now doubled) price. They probably don't get it, but I expect everyone on a "full" plan does. They already have the DNA info.

I got myself tested years ago with 23andMe and you do indeed get ancestry reports. I also get 'pings' every so often from likely distant relatives (3rd-5th cousins if anything). One lady had been adopted as an infant and was desperately seeking any sort of relative who could tell her something about her origins. I told her what I knew about the families I am descended from but man did I feel bad for her. We were like…

I was actually able to almost completely solve the mystery of where my great-grandmother came from (adopted as a baby in the South in the early 20th century) using genetic testing.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#183

Post by Kequc »

aarongolliver wrote: post #108
nether wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I signed up the sample they took was spit in a vial. Yes, and? I don't see the significance of the testing medium here. DNA sequencing from hair or blood or saliva will yield identical results.

They're saying the testing medium itself made the test appear less scientific/accurate (to them) than it actually is. Perhaps if it had been a hair sample it would have appeared more scientific (again, to them).

Yes that's right.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#184

Post by oceanghost »

rubatuga wrote: post #151
oceanghost wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have very weird metabolic problems... the US medical model --- if you can't diagnose it in two or three visits-- it doesn't exist. I actually have the 23andme kit right here-- I plan to get the genome data to submit to some other services to see if there's ANYTHING I can learn about what's going on with my body. My doctors have basically been watching me die.

Best of luck. If you really didn't have a diagnosis after 3 visits, you probably should see another doctor. I'm just curious, what you mean by metabolic problems?

I don't want to go into my medical history here... but I'm sensitive to several common proteins and compounds. Chronically low on B*, D and Calcium. Doctors think I'm nuts. It runs in the family-- my mother and grandmother have the same problem. B vitamins seem to modulate one of the problems and not another. :)

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#185

Post by cornholio »

PeterisP wrote: post #87
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably most (98% isn't it) of our DNA is the same thought, right? About 98% of our DNA does just makes an ordinary human body with normal systems. So we're only interested in the 2% that can vary . Or whatever the actual numbers are.

A single error in the very large part of DNA that shouldn't vary per individual but "makes an ordinary human body with normal systems" means that you don't get an ordinary human body with normal systems. Many such errors cause non-viable embryos, but if you have survived up to this point, then such a difference is still quite likely to have a meaningful impact to your health and is precisely the part that you'd want…

>A single error in the very large part of DNA that shouldn't vary per individual

However true, that is irrelevant to genetic diagnostics as they exist today. We have no idea how a random error might impact health aside from very limited known mutations that are sufficiently frequent in the population to enable statistical correlation. We are probably decades away from being able to say, for a random mutation, 'this will lead to a deficiency in the synthesis of protein A which impact the development or working of organ B'. We can't even agree on the proportion of junk DNA.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#186

Post by dekhn »

fudged71 wrote: post #174
dekhn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I archived it to cloud storage because I've decided that this raw data has no utility except to waste my time.

Then why pay so much money for the exhaustive test in the first place when other tests are on the market? (Ownership over the results maybe?)

I didn't pay, personally.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#187

Post by dikdik »

Balgair wrote: post #95
dikdik wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine did this when he used the service. Used the office of an acquaintance as his address, a fake name, and paid with a pre-paid Visa card that he bought in cash.

Is there a blog post or other written thingy that your friend has made to do this? I would love to know the step-by-step so I could repeat it.

No, he just took every precaution he could to prevent his identity from being linked with the sample he sent.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#188

Post by PeterisP »

cornholio wrote: post #185
PeterisP wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single error in the very large part of DNA that shouldn't vary per individual but "makes an ordinary human body with normal systems" means that you don't get an ordinary human body with normal systems. Many such errors cause non-viable embryos, but if you have survived up to this point, then such a difference is still quite likely to have a meaningful impact to your health and is precisely the part that you'd want…

>A single error in the very large part of DNA that shouldn't vary per individual However true, that is irrelevant to genetic diagnostics as they exist today. We have no idea how a random error might impact health aside from very limited known mutations that are sufficiently frequent in the population to enable statistical correlation. We are probably decades away from being able to say, for a random mutation, 'this w…

This is helpful if you have rare symptoms with no currently available explanation - if you get a list of the "unusual" mutations that you have, and correlate it with the same data from the few people worldwide that have the same issue, you get a possibility to improve that condition.

I recall seeing cases of rare genetic disorders that have been diagnosed that way, by online communities sharing data.

http://matt.might.net/articles/my-sons-killer/ is one story that counters "this will lead to a deficiency in the synthesis of protein A which impact the development or working of organ B". For many parts of DNA we do know what protein it makes. For many proteins/enzymes/etc we have some idea about their function in the body - and if we have a test subject missing that protein, then the symptoms will be even more indicative about this, even if the population is tiny (1 in this example!) and doesn't allow for any statistical inference.

This means that if we really want to, we can try to find out the likely effect and possible workaround of a particular mutation, even if we currently don't have a ready-made answer for it.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#189

Post by searine »

mnw21cam wrote: post #162
searine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This test was extremely useful to me, as I found out I was a carrier for a previously unknown genetic disease. It was because I used 23andMe that I now know I am a carrier and can potentially prevent having a child who would suffer from this disease. I'd say that was worth 200 bucks.

23andme can only detect common variants. In general, common variants do not cause non-mild diseases - certainly nothing worth avoiding a child being born. You should certainly not be making decisions like that based on a report from 23andme.

It can detect whatever variants they put on the SNP chip, be they common or rare. The only caveat is we have to know what variants to put on the chip in the first place. That's the hard part, linking rare variants to disease. After that link is made, the rest is easy.

Is it a sure fire shot to detecting all rare genetic disease? Of course not.

Is it a good way to become aware that I am a carrier for a rare mendelian genetic disease? Yes. Very much yes.

Re: FDA Authorizes Ten 23andme Genetic Health Risk Reports

#190

Post by SEJeff »

nether wrote: post #103
Kequc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I signed up the sample they took was spit in a vial. It never clicked for me that this was going to be the most scientifically accurate reading of my health in all the world. I took part because it could give me some scaring and soothing. But I assumed I'd go get a real test done if I was actually worried or interested about something specifically. The website repeats this sentiment over and over, I learned abou…

> When I signed up the sample they took was spit in a vial. Yes, and? I don't see the significance of the testing medium here. DNA sequencing from hair or blood or saliva will yield identical results.

Yup and in both sources, it will be multiplied first via polymerase chain reaction, and then analyzed / sequenced.
Post reply on HN