Quantcast
Channel: DNA
Viewing all 463 articles
Browse latest View live

A 23andMe competitor just launched its own cancer testing initiative — but it differs in a key way

$
0
0

Helix DNA 7

  • Consumer genetics company Color Genomics is rolling out services to test for genes linked to cancer and high cholesterol.
  • Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures announced the new feature at global health conference HLTH in Las Vegas on Sunday evening.
  • The announcement comes roughly a month after Color competitor 23andMe released breast cancer genetics results to consumers.
  • Color and 23andMe are taking different approaches, however. While 23andMe provides results directly to consumers, something experts have called "dangerous," Color is partnering with universities who will make the tests available to patients alongside a counselor.


The eyes may be the windows to the soul, but spit is increasingly the portal to your health. 

In an effort to give people information about everything from their ancestry to their genetic risk of developing diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, consumer genetics testing companies like 23andMe have been rapidly expanding their services.

On Sunday, another consumer genetics company called Color Genomics launched a plan to give people a peek at their genetic risk for two major conditions: hereditary cancer and high cholesterol.

The announcement was delivered by high-profile Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures, who was speaking at global healthcare conference HLTH in Las Vegas and is one of Color's investors.

Color's move into cancer and high cholesterol comes on the heels of a recent decision by 23andMe to give customers information about some of their genetic risk for breast cancer.

But Color's approach differs from 23andMe's in at least one key way: rather than simply making the information available directly to the customer, Color is partnering with several universities so that patients of existing healthcare systems would be able to get their results only with the guidance of a physician or trained genetics counselor.

That last part is something outside experts say is key to avoiding endangering the health of consumers who could easily misinterpret their results.

The delicate business of disease genetics

AncestryDisease genetics are highly complex. Having a genetic variant, or a mutation on a chunk of DNA, that amplifies your risk of a disease like cancer doesn't necessarily mean you'll develop it; similarly, not having the variant doesn't necessarily mean you won't. 

But knowing whether or not you have a genetic tweak that's linked with a disease like cancer can be powerful medicine — when that knowledge is delivered in the right way.

Catching a disease early or preventing it in the first place curbs deaths and medical costs.

But giving people access to this kind of information without doing it alongside guidance from a trained medical professional could have the opposite of the intended effect, John Witte, the program leader for the cancer genetics program at the University of California at San Francisco, told Business Insider last month.

A customer who finds out they have zero of the breast cancer tweaks that 23andMe currently tests for might wrongly assume they're no longer at risk for the disease, Witte said. That could have the unfortunate result of making that person less likely to catch the disease earlier if they go on to develop it.

Color's approach has expert support

Instead of solely releasing hereditary cancer and high cholesterol risk results to its customers, Color is partnering with four large universities — the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Chicago; the University of Washington; and Thomas Jefferson University — to make them available to patients at those institutions for free alongside a genetic counselor from Color or the institution.

That is an approach that outside experts have said they stand behind, as it essentially places the information behind a gatekeeper who can translate the results and advise on any necessary next steps.

The new Color initiative will look at two conditions where genetics play a key role: cancer — breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate — and high cholesterol, also known as familial hypercholesterolemia, or FH. Several genes are involved in the development of both conditions, while other factors like diet and exercise can play a key role, too. 

Color is focusing on these two conditions first for several reasons. One is that the genes these conditions involve have been found to be closely linked with the risk of disease. Another is that well-defined preventive measures like dietary changes exist for both conditions, meaning that people who learn they are at higher risk for FH, for example, can take steps now to decrease their chances of developing it.

Color CEO Othman Laraki told Business Insider that the approach is one he stands behind.

"We want to focus on a few things with the highest quality possible and scale them, rather than going a mile wide and an inch deep on several," Laraki said.

SEE ALSO: Popular genetics testing company 23andMe has a new cancer test — and scientists say it's dangerous

DON'T MISS: How to delete your DNA data from genetics companies like 23andMe and Ancestry

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The tallest lifeforms of all time


DIGITAL HEALTH BRIEFING: Athenahealth gets $7B bid — Teladoc taps mental health space for growth — US health system rolls out routine genomic testing

$
0
0

Welcome to Digital Health Briefing, the newsletter providing the latest news, data, and insight on how digital technology is disrupting the healthcare ecosystem, produced by Business Insider Intelligence.

Sign up and receive Digital Health Briefing free to your inbox.

Have feedback? We'd like to hear from you. Write me at:   lbeaver@businessinsider.com


ATHENAHEALTH GETS $6.9 BILLION BID IN INCREASINGLY DISRUPTED MARKET: US Hedge Fund Elliott Management is offering $6.9 billion to take electronic health record (EHR)vendor Athenahealth private, Bloomberg reports. Athenahealth has struggled to scale its business in an increasingly disruptive and competitive market, according to a senior analyst at Elliot Management, and the hedge fund believes going private will give Athenahealth “the best chance to thrive as a disruptor in the healthcare technology market.”

This isn’t the first time Elliot has approached Athenahealth. The hedge fund acquired a 9% stake in Athenahealth in 2017 and sought to talk deals, which the EHR company rebuffed. This time around, however, Athenahealth is reviewing the proposal. Here’s why it could make sense for Athenahealth to leverage the opportunity:

  • Demand for Athenahealth’s main software products has slowed.Moreover, the companys struggled to find growth in a market dominated by top EHR vendors like Cerner and Epic, according to Bloomberg. Athenahealth’s year-over-year revenue growth has steadily declined from 48% in Q4 2013 to 15% in Q1 2018.
  • EHR market leaders are solidifying their positions with strategic partnerships that will increase the gap between the rest of the market. Epic, which controls 33% of the US EHR market, integrated AI-company Nuance’s virtual assistant into its offering. And Cerner, which accounts for 28% of the US EHR market, partnered with Salesforce to offer cloud solutions for population health. Thesevalue adds make the firms increasingly appealing to customers looking for more than just an EHR vendor.

Athenahealth’s struggles are indicative of a broader shift in the health IT market. As health systems begin to internalize data and analytics, EHR companies specializing in just a few core services will likely be pushed out of the market. Healthcare providers are demanding increasingly complex health IT solutions, and the successful players will be those that invest in ancillary services and partnerships that provide a full suite of solutions.

bii athenahealth rev growth

TELADOC TAPS UNDER-SERVED MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS WITH NEW TELEHEALTH SERVICE: Teladoc announced the US implementation of its virtual care platform geared toward patients in under-resourced areas who suffer with mental health issues. The Behavioral Health Navigator pairs patients with mental health specialists and a personalized care team. The platform yielded a 32% reduction in depression symptoms in patients during its Canadian launch last year. Mental health affects 1 in 5 US adults, and Teladoc reports that more than half of Americans with a serious mental health illness haven't received treatment in the last year, often due to lack of access to specialty care. Specialists tend to gravitate to metropolitan areas that offer the largest patient pool, best research opportunities, and largest health systems, reports mHealthIntelligence. But, this leaves behind a vacuum of specialist care in rural areas, and a massive untapped market. By implementing scalable virtual health services in under-served communities, telehealth providers like Teladoc could seize a significant revenue and growth opportunity.

Teladoc isnt alone in offering remote care for mental health, though. Virtual care vendor Doctor On Demand began providing the service in 2014. US telehealth company American Well added psychiatry to its portfolio in September 2016, and recently acquired Avizia to connect users with more specialty services. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled a strategy advancing telehealth in rural areas in May.

bii teladoc earnings

US HEALTH SYSTEM ADDS DNA TESTING TO LIST OF STANDARD TESTS: Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System announced a 1,000 patient pilot program that adds DNA sequencing to its list of standard screening tests. This will enable physicians to detect diseases earlier than traditional tests allow. Geisinger eventually plans to scale the service to all its hospitals in Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, and anticipates the $300-$500 it pays per test will be offset by improved health outcomes from preventative care, Fierce Healthcare reports. For example, the Alzheimer's Association reports that early detection of Alzheimer’s can reduce the per-person cost of treatment by $64,000 by reducing hospitalizations, giving more accurate diagnoses of existing conditions, and avoiding incorrect prescriptions. Treatment of more advanced diseases also requires longer visits, occupying beds hospitals could use to admit additional patients. Insurers may follow Geisinger’s lead. The average cost to payer per patient the year following diagnoses of breast cancer is about $61,000 for stage 0, and $135,000 for stage IV, a study shows.

Improving early detection could help control the 86% of US healthcare expenditures allocated to chronic health conditions. Moreover, the move could also raise awareness of clinical genomic testing, which has been overshadowed by direct-to-consumer tests from companies like 23andMe. These clinical programs have a greater focus on genetic results than the consumer-based offerings, which often target users’ ancestry over highlighting potential disease risks, and could have a better chance at unleashing the potential of genetic testing to help reveal chronic illnesses before they become larger problems. “Whether it's identifying health risks for individuals, discovering a rare or misunderstood disease, or identifying a disease in a young child ... clinical genomics has literally saved lives,” Amir Trabelsi, CEO of clinical genomics company Genoox, recently told Business Insider Intelligence.

bii d2c genetic testing

LOOMING ASIA-PACIFIC HEALTH COSTS SPUR NEW TECH FROM GE, A*STAR PARTNERSHIP: GE Healthcare, the health arm of General Electric, and Singapore government tech research firm A*STAR, announced the co-development of several new medical technologies aimed at streamlining clinical operations workflow. The devices, which will be launched in Asia-Pacific (APAC), are the culmination of the partnership formed in 2014. GE Healthcare and A*STAR hope to take advantage of the rapidly growing MedTech market in Asia — P&S Market Research projects the APAC digital health market will be the fastest-growing market in the world by 2022, as an aging population, expanding middle class, and greater prevalence of medical disease creates a need for new digital health solutions. This growth trajectory will position the APAC as the second-largest in the world by 2020. The technologies improving clinical operations workflow will be critical to providers’ ability to satisfy increased demand for care. For example, GE and A*STAR introduced a streamlined digital PET/CT scanner that lowered testing time from 40 minutes to 25 minutes, increasing the scanning rate of patients at a Singapore health system by 20%. Digital health solutions that decrease patient visit time, increase diagnostic accuracy, and improve healthcare delivery will be critical for overburdened health systems.

IN OTHER NEWS:

  • Notable’s new smartwatch for physicians uses AI and voice recognition to record information from patient visits and minimize paperwork. Early results show the wearable saves doctors at least an hour of work a day and has 98.5% accuracy rate in transcribing visit information into EHRs.
  • The FDA applied for $100 million in funding to buy an EHR system to study cardiovascular issues induced by drug exposure.
  • The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) formed an independent council to review how to train its staff to better leverage AI and big data. In early May, the NHS revealed that a “computer algorithm failure” in their breast cancer screening process may have led to the death of up to 270 women.

 

Join the conversation about this story »

A startup that wants to make treatments that edit single letters in our DNA just raised $87 million

$
0
0

Beam cofounders Feng Zhang, David R. Liu, and J. Keith Joung

  • Beam Therapeutics, a new startup founded by gene-editing pioneers, just raised $87 million to get its technology that changes single letters in DNA into humans.
  • The cutting-edge technology, known as base editing, acts like a molecular pencil, the Beam cofounder David Liu told Business Insider. In contrast, Crispr, another new gene-editing technology, acts more like scissors, cutting out larger chunks of DNA on a particular gene.
  • The technology is still in early days, though the company said it had 10-15 programs with early data. 

A startup founded by gene-editing pioneers wants to use technology that changes single letters of DNA to treat diseases.

Called Beam Therapeutics, the company just raised $87 million in a series A round from investors including F-Prime Capital Partners and ARCH Venture Partners.

The cutting-edge technology it's putting to work is known as base editing, which acts like a molecular pencil, the Beam cofounder David Liu told Business Insider.

Our bodies are made up of 3 billion base pairs — the A's, C's, T's, and G's that make us who we are as individuals.

Of the roughly 60,000 existing genetic diseases, roughly half can be attributed to point mutations, Liu said. That happens when a single base pair is altered.

What Beam wants to do is use base editing as a pencil to erase one letter and swap in another — a C for a T or a G for an A. Beam's licensed technology explores how that change works in the person's DNA, or in the RNA that then encodes a particular protein.

Liu, who also founded the Crispr gene-editing company Editas and teaches chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard University, says he sees base editing as complementary to the work being done with Crispr, which he thinks of more as molecular scissors.

"There are thousands of human genetic diseases that society would love to address, and there's no one technology that's going to be able to address them all," Liu said. "I think we all have a responsibility to try to develop as many of them as we can to cover as many conditions that are treatable as possible."

The technology on both the DNA and the RNA base-editing fronts are relatively new. Liu and his lab first published information on DNA base editing in the journal Nature in 2016. The MIT biologist Feng Zhang then debuted his lab's RNA base-editing tool in the journal Science in October.

As the researchers were working in their own labs to better understand base editing, they saw that other labs were also testing and validating the technology. Eventually, Liu said, starting a company emerged as the best option to advance the technology and, ideally, benefit people one day.

The technology is still in early days, though the company said it had 10-15 programs with early data.

Liu said the criteria the company was using to pick where to start included:

  • Ensuring that changing a single base pair can reverse a particular disease.
  • Determining whether the DNA or RNA sequence is a good fit for a base editor, so it can target and make the right kind of edit.
  • Looking at whether the therapy can get to the tissue being treated. For example, some gene-editing companies that use Crispr are starting with treatments for eye or liver conditions or blood disorders.

SEE ALSO: A cutting-edge new cancer treatment has two different price tags, and it could be the future of how we pay for drugs

DON'T MISS: NYC is better known for banking than biotechs — but billions in investments are flowing in to change that

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Most affluent investors would rather go to the dentist than invest in a company that hurts the environment

A Harvard startup wants to reverse aging in dogs, and humans could be next

$
0
0

RTXZTDZ

  • A professor at Harvard Medical School has co-founded a start-up that intends to reverse the effects of aging in dogs. 
  • Taking cue from studies of worms and flies, the startup believes the lifespan of a dog could be doubled by amending their DNA.  
  • However, the unintended consequences these tests could have are raising ethical concerns amongst some.


The world's most influential synthetic biologist is behind a new company that plans to rejuvenate dogs using gene therapy. If it works, he plans to try the same approach in people, and he might be one of the first volunteers.

The stealth startup Rejuvenate Bio, cofounded by George Church of Harvard Medical School, thinks dogs aren't just man's best friend but also the best way to bring age-defeating treatments to market.

The company, which has carried out preliminary tests on beagles, claims it will make animals "younger" by adding new DNA instructions to their bodies.

Its age-reversal plans build on tantalizing clues seen in simple organisms like worms and flies. Tweaking their genes can increase their life spans by double or better. Other research has shown that giving old mice blood transfusions from young ones can restore some biomarkers to youthful levels.

"We have already done a bunch of trials in mice and we are doing some in dogs, and then we'll move on to humans," Church told the podcaster Rob Reid earlier this year. The company's other founders, CEO Daniel Oliver and science lead Noah Davidsohn, a postdoc in Church's sprawling Boston lab, declined to be interviewed for this article.

The company's efforts to keep its activities out of the press make it unclear how many dogs it has treated so far. In a document provided by a West Coast veterinarian, dated last June, Rejuvenate said its gene therapy had been tested on four beagles with Tufts Veterinary School in Boston. It is unclear whether wider tests are under way.

However, from public documents, a patent application filed by Harvard, interviews with investors and dog breeders, and public comments made by the founders, 'MIT Technology Review' assembled a portrait of a life-extension startup pursuing a longevity long shot through the $72-billion-a-year US pet industry.

"Dogs are a market in and of themselves," Church said during an event in Boston last week. "It's not just a big organism close to humans. It's something people will pay for, and the FDA process is much faster. We'll do dog trials, and that'll be a product, and that'll pay for scaling up in human trials."

It's still unknown if the company's treatments do anything for dogs. If they do work, however, it might not take long for people to clamor for similar nostrums, creating riches for inventors.

The effort draws on ongoing advances in biotechnology, including the ability to edit genes. To some scientists, this progress means that mastery over aging is inevitable, although no one can say exactly how soon it will happen. The prolongation of human lifespan is "the biggest thing that is going to happen in the 21st century," says David Sinclair, a Harvard biologist who collaborates with the Church lab. "It's going to make what Elon Musk is doing look fairly pedestrian."

Dog years

Rejuvenate Bio has met with investors and won a grant from the US Special Operations Command to look into "enhancement" of military dogs while Harvard is seeking a broad patent on genetic means of aging control in species including the "cow, pig, horse, cat, dog, rat, etc."

The team hit on the idea of treating pets because proving that it's possible to increase longevity in humans would take too long. "You don't want to go to the FDA and say we extend life by 20 years. They'd say, ‘Great, come back in 20 years with the data,'" Church said during the event in Boston.

Instead, Rejuvenate will first try to stop fatal heart ailments common in spaniels and Doberman pinschers, amassing evidence that the concepts can work in humans too.

Lab research already provides hints that aging can be reversed. For instance, scientists can "reprogram" any cell to take on the type of youthful state seen in an embryo. But turning back the aging program in animals is not as easy because we're made up of trillions of specialized cells acting in concert, not just one floating in a dish. "I don't think we are even near to being able to reverse the aging process as a whole in mammals," says J. Pedro de Magalhães, whose team at the University of Liverpool maintains a database of longevity-connected genes.

Starting around 2015, Church's large Harvard lab, also known for attempting to genetically resurrect the woolly mammoth, decided to make a run at rejuvenating mice using gene therapy and newer tools like CRISPR.

Gene therapies work by inserting DNA instructions into a virus, which conveys them into an animal's cells. In the Harvard lab, the technology has been used to modulate gene activity in old mice — either increasing or lowering it — in an effort to return certain molecules to levels seen in younger, healthy animals.

The lab started working through a pipeline of more than 60 different gene therapies, which it is testing on old mice, alone and in combinations. The Harvard group now plans to publish a scientific report on a technique that extends rodents' lives by modifying two genes to act on four major diseases of aging: heart and kidney failure, obesity, and diabetes. According to Church, the results are "pretty eye-popping."

Any age you want

In a January presentation about his project at Harvard, Davidsohn closed by displaying a picture of a white-bearded Church as he is now and another as he was decades ago, hair still auburn. Yet the second image was labelled 2117 AD — 100 years in the future.

The images reflect Church's aspirations for true age reversal. He says he'd sign up if a treatment proved safe, or even as a guinea pig in a study. Essentially, Church has said, the objective is to "have the body and mind of a 22-year-old but the experience of a 130-year-old."

Such ideas are finding an audience in Silicon Valley, where billionaires like Peter Thiel look upon the defeat of aging as both a personal imperative and, potentially, a huge business that would transform society. Earlier this year, for example, Davidsohn told Thiel's Founders Fund that because scientists can already modify life spans of simpler organisms, it should be possible to do so with humans as well. He told the investors that one day "we'll be able to control the biological clock and keep you whatever age you want."

Old dogs, new tricks

The new company has been contacting dog breeders, ethicists, and veterinarians with its ideas for restoring youth and extending "maximal life span," according to its documents. The strategy is to gain a foothold in the pet market — where Americans already lavish $20 billion a year on vet bills — "before moving on to humans."

Starting last year, Rejuvenate Bio began reaching out to owners of toy dogs called Cavalier King Charles spaniels after saying it planned a gene therapy to treat a heart ailment, mitral valve disease, that kills about half of these tiny dogs by age 10.

Rejuvenate hasn't publicly disclosed what its dog therapy involves, but it may mirror one treatment Davidsohn has given mice to stop heart damage. That involved using gene therapy to block a protein, TGF-beta, termed a "master switch" in the process by which heart valves scar, thicken, and become misshapen, the same process that afflicts the dogs.

This spring, Davidsohn and Oliver traveled to Chicago to the breed's national show, where they were feted at an auction dinner that raised several thousand dollars for the trial. Spaniel breeder Patty Kanan says the research is "seriously meaningful to the American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club," of which she is president.

In a flyer circulated to spaniel owners last year, Rejuvenate stated, without qualification, that the still untested treatment would make pets "healthier, happier, and younger." But not all dog owners are impressed.

To Rod Russell, editor of the website CavalierHealth.org, the offer is "pure hype." He says there is "absolutely no evidence" for a way to make dogs younger and that even for pets, experimental drugs can't be said to work before a study is complete. "No one would be naïve enough to contribute money on a promise that this treatment will make their Cavaliers younger. Or would they?" he asks on his site.

A further question: even if the treatment stops progressive heart disease, is it "age reversal" or merely a form of disease prevention? To Church, the answer lies in whether an old dog's body can heal like that of a young one. In any case, he predicts, pet owners won't worry about semantics "if the dog is jumping around wagging its tail."

Dog ethics

One doesn't have to wait for aging reversal in humans to see how life extension could create some ethical quandaries. Last September, Rejuvenate Bio's founders traveled to New Haven for a roundtable discussion with philosophers and ethicists organized by Lisa Moses, a veterinarian affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

For instance, if dogs' lives can be extended, more pets would outlive their owners and end up in shelters or euthanized. "I do worry about unintended consequences," says Moses. "I would want to see that investigated before this goes much further."

The pet dogs Rejuvenate wants to test gene therapy on also have fewer special ethical protections than those in research facilities. "Pets fall into a legal gray zone when it comes to experimenting on them," she says. The power of life and death sits in their owner's hands; people can choose to put an ailing animal out of its misery or, just as often, take extraordinary medical steps to save it, which Moses says "don't always benefit the patient."

Life-extension treatments based on genetic modification could also bring unexpected side effects, according to Matt Kaeberlein, a University of Washington researcher involved in a study called the Dog Aging Project, who has been testing whether a drug called rapamycin causes dogs to live longer.

"The idea that we can genetically engineer lab animals to have longer life span has been validated. But there are concerns about bringing it out of the lab," Kaeberlein says. "There are trade-offs." Changing a gene that damages the heart could have other effects on dogs, perhaps making them less healthy in other ways. "And when you do these genetic modifications, there are many cases where it doesn't work as you intend," he adds. "What do you do with the dogs in which the treatment fails?"

Kaeberlein says he'd like to see stronger evidence of rejuvenation in mice before anyone tries it in a dog. Until then, he thinks, claims for youth-restoring medicine should be kept on a leash.

"They can talk about it all they want, but it hasn't been done yet," he says. "I think it's good for getting people's attention. But I am not sure it's the most rigorous language in the world."

SEE ALSO: It seems like chimpanzees have specific calls for 'snake' and other words — and it could teach us how human language evolved

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I tried the newest BlackBerry phone for a week

Scientists are about to start a hunt for the Loch Ness monster using DNA testing

$
0
0

scientists loch ness project DNA testing Scotland monster

  • Scientists will test the lake of the fabled Loch Ness monster using a DNA-capturing robot. 
  • Whenever a creature moves through its environment, it leaves behind tiny fragments of DNA from skin, scales, feathers, fur, feces and urine.
  • Along with the hope to find evidence of the monster's existence, they will also research new and invasive species that inhabit Loch Ness. 
  • Their findings are expected to be presented in January 2019. 

LONDON (Reuters) - A global team of scientists plans to scour the icy depths of Loch Ness next month using environmental DNA (eDNA) in an experiment that may discover whether Scotland's fabled monster really does, or did, exist.

The use of eDNA sampling is already well established as a tool for monitoring marine life like whales and sharks.

Whenever a creature moves through its environment, it leaves behind tiny fragments of DNA from skin, scales, feathers, fur, faeces and urine.

"This DNA can be captured, sequenced and then used to identify that creature by comparing the sequence obtained to large databases of known genetic sequences from hundreds of thousands of different organisms," said team spokesman Professor Neil Gemmell of the University of Otago in New Zealand.

The first written record of a monster relates to the Irish monk St Columba, who is said to have banished a "water beast" to the depths of the River Ness in the 6th century.

The most famous picture of Nessie, known as the "surgeon’s photo", was taken in 1934 and showed a head on a long neck emerging from the water. It was revealed 60 years later to have been a hoax that used a sea monster model attached to a toy submarine.

Countless unsuccessful attempts to track down the monster have been made in the years since, notably in 2003 when the BBC funded an extensive scientific search that used 600 sonar beams and satellite tracking to sweep the full length of the loch.

The most recent attempt was two years ago when a high-tech marine drone found a monster - but not the one it was looking for. The discovery turned out to be replica used in the 1970 film "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes", which sank nearly 50 years ago.

Gemmell's team, which comprises scientists from Britain, Denmark, the United States, Australia and France, is keen to stress the expedition is more than just a monster hunt.

"While the prospect of looking for evidence of the Loch Ness monster is the hook to this project, there is an extraordinary amount of new knowledge that we will gain from the work about organisms that inhabit Loch Ness," Gemmell said on his university website.

He predicts they will document new species of life, particularly bacteria, and will provide important data on the extent of several new invasive species recently seen in the loch, such as Pacific pink salmon.

Their findings are expected to be presented in January 2019. 

(Reporting by Ana de Liz; editing by Stephen Addison)

SEE ALSO: Massive dinosaur footprints found in Scotland could shed light into a little-understood time period

Join the conversation about this story »

Why so many people still believe the Loch Ness monster is real

$
0
0

Loch Ness monster

  • The Loch Ness monster debate has conflicted researchers for years.
  • A research team plans to use DNA testing that will establish once and for all if the Loch Ness monster exists. 
  • Whether the research findings confirm the existence of the Loch Ness monster or not, their results will most likely fail to shift the mindset of the truest Loch Ness believers. 

 

You may have noticed a curious recent announcement: An international research team plans to use state-of-the-art DNA testing to establish once and for all whether the Loch Ness monster exists.

Regardless of the results, it's unlikely the test will change the mind of anyone who firmly believes in Nessie's existence. As a philosopher working on the notion of evidence and knowledge, I still consider the scientists' efforts to be valuable. Moreover, this episode can illustrate something important about how people think more generally about evidence and science.

Discounting discomfiting evidence

Genomicist Neil Gemmell, who will lead the international research team in Scotland, says he looks forward to "(demonstrating) the scientific process." The team plans to collect and identify free-floating DNA from creatures living in the waters of Loch Ness. But whatever the eDNA sampling finds, Gemmell is well aware the testing results will most likely not convince everyone.

A long-standing theory in social psychology helps explain why. According to cognitive dissonance theory, first developed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, people seek to avoid the internal discomfort that arises when their beliefs, attitudes or behavior come into conflict with each other or with new information. In other words, it doesn't feel good to do something you don't value or that contradicts your deeply held convictions. To deal with this kind of discomfort, people sometimes attempt to rationalize their beliefs and behavior.

In a classic study, Festinger and colleagues observed a small doomsday cult in Chicago who were waiting for a UFO to save them from impending massive destruction of Earth. When the prophecy didn't come true, instead of rejecting their original belief, members of the sect came to believe that the God of Earth changed plans and no longer wanted to destroy the planet.

Cult members so closely identified with the idea that a UFO was coming to rescue them that they couldn't just let the idea go when it was proven wrong. Rather than give up on the original belief, they preferred to lessen the cognitive dissonance they were experiencing internally.

Loch Ness monster true believers may be just like the doomsday believers. Giving up their favorite theory could be too challenging. And yet, they'll be sensitive to any evidence they hear about that contradicts their conviction, which creates a feeling of cognitive discomfort. To overcome the dissonance, it's human nature to try to explain away the scientific evidence. So rather than accepting that researchers' inability to find Nessie DNA in Loch Ness means the monster doesn't exist, believers may rationalize that the scientists didn't sample from the right area, or didn't know how to identify this unknown DNA, for instance.

Cognitive dissonance may also provide an explanation for other science-related conspiracy theories, such as flat Earth beliefs, climate change denial and so on. It may help account for reckless descriptions of reliable media sources as "fake news." If one's deeply held convictions don't fit well with what media say, it's easier to deal with any inner discomfort by discrediting the source of the new information rather than revising one's own convictions.

Philosophy of knowledge

If psychology may explain why Loch Ness Monster fans believe what they do, philosophy can explain what's wrong with such beliefs.

The error here comes from an implicit assumption that to prove a claim, one has to rule out all of the conceivable alternatives – instead of all the plausible alternatives. Of course scientists haven't and cannot deductively rule out all of the conceivable possibilities here. If to prove something you have to show that there is no conceivable alternative to your theory, then you can't really prove much. Maybe the Loch Ness monster is an alien whose biology doesn't include DNA.

So the problem is not that believers in the existence of the Loch Ness monster or climate change deniers are sloppy thinkers. Rather, they are too demanding thinkers, at least with respect to some selected claims. They adopt too-high standards for what counts as evidence, and for what is needed to prove a claim.

Philosophers have long known that too-high standards for knowledge and rational belief lead to skepticism. Famously, 17th century French philosopher René Descartes suggested that only "clear and distinct perceptions" should function as the required markers for knowledge. So if only some special inner feeling can guarantee knowledge and we can be wrong about that feeling – say, due to some brain damage – then what can be known?

This line of thought has been taken to its extreme in contemporary philosophy by Peter Unger. He asserted that knowledge requires certainty; since we are not really certain of much, if anything at all, we don't know much, if anything at all.

One promising way to resist a skeptic is simply not to engage in trying to prove that the thing whose existence is doubted exists. A better approach might be to start with basic knowledge: assume we know some things and can draw further consequences from them.

A knowledge-first approach that attempts to do exactly this has recently gained popularity in epistemology, the philosophical theory of knowledge. British philosopher Timothy Williamson and others including me have proposed that evidence, rationality, belief, assertion, cognitive aspects of action and so on can be explained in terms of knowledge.

This idea is in contrast to an approach popular in the 20th century, that knowledge is true justified belief. But counterexamples abound that show one can have true justified belief without knowledge.

Say, you check your Swiss watch and it reads 11:40. You believe on this basis that it is 11:40. However, what you haven't noticed is that your typically super reliable watch has stopped exactly 12 hours ago. And by incredible chance it happens that, now, when you check your watch, it is in fact 11:40. In this case you have a true and justified or rational belief but still, it doesn't seem that you know that it is 11:40 – it is just by pure luck that your belief that it's 11:40 happens to be true.

Our newer knowledge-first approach avoids defining knowledge altogether and rather posits knowledge as fundamental. It's its own fundamental entity – which allows it to undercut the skeptical argument. One may not need to feel certain or have a sensation of clarity and distinctness in order to know things. The skeptical argument doesn't get off the ground in the first place.

Knowledge and the skeptic

The eDNA analysis of Loch Ness may not be enough to change the minds of those who are strongly committed to the existence of the lake's monster. Psychology may help explain why. And lessons from philosophy suggest this kind of investigation may not even provide good arguments against conspiracy theorists and skeptics.

A different and, arguably, better argument against skepticism questions the skeptic's own state of knowledge and rationality. Do you really know that we know nothing? If not, then there may be something we know. If yes, then we can know something and, again, you are wrong in claiming that knowledge is not attainable.

A strategy of this kind would challenge the evidential and psychological bases for true believers' positive conviction in the existence of Nessie. That's quite different from attempting to respond with scientific evidence to each possible skeptical challenge.

But the rejection of a few true believers doesn't detract from the value of this kind of scientific research. First and foremost, this research is expected to produce much more precise and fine-grained knowledge of biodiversity in Loch Ness than what we have without it. Science is at its best when it avoids engaging with the skeptic directly and simply provides new knowledge and evidence. Science can be successful without ruling out all of the possibilities and without convincing everyone.

SEE ALSO: Scientists are about to start a hunt for the Loch Ness monster using DNA testing

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I tried the newest BlackBerry phone for a week

There could be a genetic reason some people get 'hangry'

$
0
0

shake shack

  • DNA-testing company 23andMe asked 100,000 people if they get "hangry," the phenomenon in which you get irritable or angry when you are feeling hungry. 
  • Based on the responses as well as the peoples' genetic data, 23andMe pinpointed two genetic variants associated with "hanger." 
  • Genes have more to do with personality than how our body processes food, a result that surprised the researchers.

You know the feeling of crankiness you feel creeping in shortly before mealtimes? 

If so, you've experienced "hanger" and you're not alone. 

DNA-testing company 23andMe surveyed more than 100,000 people and asked them a simple question: "How often do you feel angry or irritable when you are hungry?" It turns out that more than 75% said they felt the sensation, often referred to as getting "hangry," at least some of the time.

Researchers at 23andMe then cross-referenced that data with genetic information the company collects from its tests. A few genetic variants matched up with the survey participants who experienced "hanger," suggesting that some people are disposed based on their genes to feel this sensation. 

This surprised researchers, who initially had expected to see a genetic link to the survey data around the metabolism. Meaning, if you are genetically predisposed to have a tough time regulating your blood sugar level that low blood sugar would affect your mood.

Instead, 23andme scientist Janie Shelton said, the two variants — on the vaccinia-related-kinase 2 and the exoribonuclease 1 genes — were linked with personality and neuropsychiatric conditions, such as depression and schizophrenia.

"The genes involved seem to be more related to pathways with our behavior and personality," Shelton said. 

Based on the survey data, women were more likely to report feeling irritable when hungry, as were people under 50.

Of course, our genes can only inform so much about our life. There seem to be other factors that play a role in feeling "hangry."

A study of more than 200 college students published Monday in the journal Emotion found that feeling "hangry" instead of simply hungry could have a lot to do with a particular environment a person is exposed to, if they’re aware of their emotions, and how hungry they might be.

SEE ALSO: I revisited my 23andMe results that can now tell whether you may have an increased risk of cancer — here's what it was like

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you hold in your pee for too long

A blockbuster gene-editing tool has been linked to cancer — here's how worried you should be (EDIT, NTLA, CRSP)

$
0
0

Close up of cancer cells.

  • Boldheadlines linking blockbuster gene-editing tool CRISPR to cancer sent stocks in companies trying to bring the technology to medicine tumbling.
  • But scientists who study the technique say the concerns are overblown at best and an incorrect interpretation of the science at worst.
  • Ultimately, using CRISPR does not appear to present any challenges that scientists familiar with gene editing have not already faced.


Earlier this week, reports linking the blockbuster gene-editing tool CRISPR to cancer in twostudies sent investors scrambling to pull out of companies working on the technology, which is being studied for use in everything from food to medicine. The tool's precise cut-and-paste approach to gene editing allows for a range of promising medical applications, from curing sickle cell anemia to preventing some forms of blindness.

On Monday afternoon, headlinessuggested that cells edited with the tool were more likely to become cancerous. Within hours of the reports being published, shares of Editas Medicine, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Intellia Therapeutics — all of which are trying to bring CRISPR to medicine — took a significant tumble.

But scientists who study CRISPR and other methods of gene editing call the reports "overblown." They say the link to cancer is tenuous at best and an incorrect interpretation of the results at worst.

"This is absurd," John Doench, the associate director of the genetic perturbation platform at MIT's Broad Institute, told Business Insider. "There was a massive overreaction here."

Like many other researchers involved in the space, Doench read the twostudies highlighted in the recent report and published in the journal Nature Medicine. Instead of concluding that the technique causes cancer, Doench read the papers and thought it highlighted facts about how cells behave in response to perceived threats. Most of these are already fairly well-known to people who study gene editing. Tweaking a cell's DNA is a violent process; when it is done, cells respond by trying to defend or repair themselves. This is one of the biggest hurdles facing most cutting-edge gene editing approaches today. It is not unique to CRISPR.

"I’m honestly trying to figure out why this has generated such a response and I really can’t," Doench said. "Everything I can see is just related to the stocks and finances and not in anyway related to the science."

Cells responding normally to a perceived threat

dna cut and paste crisprThe problem comes down to the basic biology of what happens in cells that encounter DNA damage.

To make changes to DNA, CRISPR breaks key parts of the strands that make up the genetic material in a cell. This cutting and slicing ability is why it's so powerful; previous tools for gene modification were limited by their inability to precisely target certain parts of a cell's DNA.

When anything — be it CRISPR or a disease or anything else — slices into genetic material, the "broken" cells try to patch themselves up in a process that's governed largely by a gene called p53.

If that fix-it gene starts to malfunction, it means cells can't self-repair. Cancer can occur as a result.

The recentpapers did not reveal that editing the DNA of a cell with CRISPR damaged its fix-it genes. Instead, the process appeared to activate them, which is exactly what scientists would expect to happen with many kinds of gene-editing.

In other words, CRISPR turned on the self-repair process, and "the cell is responding as it should," Doench said."That doesn’t mean p53 has been inactivated and these cells are now cancerous, it means the cell has done its job." 

A tweet that Nature sent out on Tuesday afternoon with a link to one of the papers appeared to back up this interpretation, saying, "p53 defends against CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing."

Gaetan Burgio, a professor of genetics who studies CRISPR at the Australian National University, agreed, tweeting, "Beware exaggeration and overstated headlines. The papers say after CRISPR-Cas9 ... P53 signaling is activated. They don't say CRISPR could cause cancer."

Laboratory cells acquire all kinds of mutations, gene-editing or not

The scientists behind the two recent papers were looking out for another potentially disturbing consequence of using CRISPR on these cells: that their fix-it genes would be shut down after applying the tool — a result that would leave them vulnerable to mutations and cancer.

But that didn’t happen either, according to the two papers. What did happen, however, is that the cells edited with CRISPR were more likely to have mutations on their fix-it genes. But that wasn’t necessarily a result of CRISPR.

In fact, cells in labs have a tendency to acquire all kinds of mutations simply as a result of being in a lab. A 2017 paper published in Nature found, for example, that human embryonic stem cell lines frequently develop mutations without any kind of gene editing being done on them. Many of those mutations also happen to be on the p53, or fix-it, gene.

The last line of one of the most recent papers sums this idea up well, concluding that scientists who are developing techniques using CRISPR should closely monitor the function of the fix-it gene on the cells that they edit using the technique.

This is also something that most biologists — especially those who work in gene editing — already know. Other techniques like zinc finger nucleases, a type of gene editing that can lead to outcomes seen as similar to CRISPR, require keeping a close eye on the fix-it gene, too. That's a risk scientists are actively monitoring, not a unique issue presented by CRISPR.

"To anyone who would actually use gene editing, this was already baked into the cake," Doench said.

SEE ALSO: A controversial technology could save us from starvation — if we let it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 science facts that 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' totally ignored


Pharma giant Roche just made a $2.4 billion bet on cancer data (FMI)

$
0
0

Roche CEO


Roche just made another big bet on cancer data.

On Tuesday, the Swiss pharma giant acquired the rest of Foundation Medicine, a company that sequences the genetics of a person's tumor, for $2.4 billion.

Roche had held a majority stake in the company, and the deal values Foundation at $5.3 billion, a 29% premium to where Foundation's stock closed on Monday. Foundation was up 28% in pre-market trading Tuesday.  

It's the second cancer-data-related deal Roche has done in 2018. In February, Roche paid $1.9 billion for the New York-based healthcare technology startup Flatiron Health, which collects clinical data from cancer patients — such as what medications patients have taken and how they have responded to them.

In addition to its tumor-sequencing tests for patients, Foundation Medicine has been work with pharmaceutical companies to create tests that could help better predict whether a person responds to a particular cancer treatment know as immunotherapy. As part of the deal, Foundation will continue to operate independently, Roche said.

"Joining forces with Roche as an independent operating company allows Foundation Medicine to continue its collaboration with Roche, as well as our biopharma partners, to drive ubiquitous access to CGP testing and innovative data services,” Foundation CEO Troy Cox said in a news release

Flatiron and Foundation, which had both been backed by Roche prior to acquisition, had teamed up most recently in 2016 to launch a health database filled with information from 20,000 people, both clinically and genetically. 

SEE ALSO: Startup cofounders who sold their first startup to Google for $70 million and their second for $1.9 billion reveal how they built wildly successful businesses twice

DON'T MISS: Foundation Medicine wants to find 'software bugs' in your genome to fight cancer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Most affluent investors would rather go to the dentist than invest in a company that hurts the environment

Lawmakers are asking DNA-testing companies about their privacy policies — here's what you should know when taking genetics tests like 23andMe or AncestryDNA

$
0
0

Helix DNA 6

  • Taking a DNA test to learn about your ancestry or health can be fun, but it requires the transfer of sensitive information: your genetic data. 
  • When sending in your DNA sample, it's important to get a clear picture of who owns that information and who will be able to see it. 
  • Before taking any test, always read the terms of service. 

DNA tests can tell you where your family is from and what health conditions you might be predisposed to get. 

They've gained significant popularity in recent years — over Thanksgiving weekend last year alone, shoppers bought 1.5 million AncestryDNA kits. 

But the rise of consumer genetics tests has brought up a number of privacy concerns, since they deal with information that's fundamental and unique to every individual. And there have been cases like the arrest of the Golden State Killer that used information from one of these databases to crack the case. It poses the question: When you spit into a tube and submit your sample for one of these reports, who has access to that information and who ultimately owns your DNA?

Two lawmakers — US Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey and Dave Loesback of Iowa — are now pressing DNA testing companies for more information about their security and privacy policies, Stat News reports. The hope is to resolve any issues around security and privacy. 

Late in 2017, Senator Chuck Schumer also raised the issue, calling on the Federal Trade Commission to "take a serious look at this relatively new kind of service and ensure that these companies can have clear, fair privacy policies."

In a blog post published December 12, the FTC recommended reading the fine print. "If you’re thinking about buying an at-home DNA test kit, you owe it to yourself – and to family members who could be affected – to investigate the options thoroughly," it says.

James Hazel, a post-doctoral research fellow at Vanderbilt University's Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, has been looking into the privacy policies of consumer genetics tests. He said the FTC's suggestion is very important. 

"We are good at clicking 'agree' and not reading the terms of service," he said.

When it comes to DNA tests, a lot of pertinent information hides in that fine print, including language about who owns your DNA, where your genetic information is going, and what the process of deleting your information from a database entails. 

I've tried ancestry tests from from 23andMeAncestry, and National Geographic (a test run through the Helix DNA test platform), so I checked in with all of them to see how they stack up in terms of privacy. 

Helix DNA 7

Who owns your DNA?

For starters, there's the question of who "owns" your DNA after you send in a spit sample. The 3 billion genetic building blocks, or base pairs, are what makes us who we are. 

"You’re granting us the rights to share information, but fundamentally you own your data," Elissa Levin, Helix's director of policy, told Business Insider. 

23andMe and Ancestry said the same thing — although the companies need some rights in order to analyze your sample and send results back, they don't have total ownership. They can't, say, bar you from taking another DNA test in the future. 

"We believe that you own your data," 23andMe privacy officer Kate Black told Business Insider. "So whoever's data this is is ultimately the owner of that information. However, we do need certain rights and privileges to process their sample and provide them with our services."

From there, it's a matter of how far those rights go.

Who gets to see your de-identified information? 

When providing a spit sample for a genetics test, your information can either be identified — that is, linked to your name — or de-identified. It's most common for the sample of spit you submit to be processed without your name on it.

While reading through your test's privacy policy, note who has access to both kinds of information. Based on the three companies I spoke with, the de-identified information mainly stays that way (you're assigned an identification number that only the companies can pair with your account).

In many cases, an external lab might be involved in sequencing the genetic data to pass back to the company. For example, 23andMe works with contracted labs in North Carolina and California. 

"The lab has some access but they don’t know who it relates to," Eric Heath, Ancestry's chief privacy officer, told Business Insider. spit tube with solution

Helix does the sequencing in its own lab, then sends some of that information to its test partners, such as National Geographic. Helix is trying to be like the "app store" for genetics, allowing you to submit your spit to them once, then use the sample for multiple tests based on what type of analysis interests you.  

"The information we share with them is only the relevant piece," Levin said. "For some partners it might be a few markers or it could be hundreds of genes." 

But there's a key caveat to keep in mind: Because your DNA is unique to you, it's can't be totally de-identified. 

"DNA is so unique, and there are so many data sources out there, that it is incredibly hard to fully anonymize — and more so to promise and provide any absolute guarantee that the data are anonymized," Laura Lyman Rodriguez, director of policy, communications, and education at the National Human Genome Research Institute, told the magazine Undark in 2016

How is the data that’s tied to your identifiable information used?

Your identifiable information includes any self-reported data and your name. 

With 23andMe, Black said, nobody has access to both your email and genetic information — only one or the other. The system that combines the two pieces to give you a report is automated, she said. 

The same goes for Ancestry. Heath said the personal identification and genetic data are "not commingled until we provide you with your results." 

Helix leaves the genetic information de-identified, and it's up to the partners to recombine the analysis with the person who submitted a sample. Because each partner has their own privacy policies, it's important to read those as well. 

The three companies we spoke with all said they've created safeguards so that even if there's a security breach, your genetic information and names aren't connected.23andMe kit

Can you opt out of giving research partners your genetic data? 

Another privacy concern is the possibility that your DNA could get shared with other companies without your consent. 

23andMe and Ancestry both have research partnerships with pharmaceutical companies that explore things like the genetics of aging, psychiatric disorders, or lupus.

Both companies require you to consent to sharing your information if you want to participate in those programs. Unless you agree, your information will remain with just 23andMe or Ancestry (and the contractors they work with to do the test). The same goes for connecting you with potential family members. 

Helix does not currently have research partnerships. Levin said if that changes, there would be a voluntary process users could opt into as well.

How to wipe your information after taking a test

After you've gotten your results back, your genetic data lives on with the company you sent it to, and likely in the tube of spit you submitted. If you're not comfortable with that, the vast majority of your data can be stricken from databases and storage facilities.

Things get a bit trickier if you consented to share your information with third-party researchers. In that case, you can usually stop information from being used in new projects, but anything previously shared will still be out there. 

Before taking any of these tests, it's best to learn about the process of deleting an account, and find out whether your sample will be stored indefinitely. 

23andMe

When you register your test with 23andMe, you can opt to either have your sample stored or discarded after use.

To close your 23andMe account, search through the help center for a page titled "Requesting Account Closure." On that page are links to submit a request or email customer service (customercare@23andme.com). 

If you opt to have your spit sample stored but later change your mind, an option in the settings section of your report allows you to discard the sample.

 

how to discard spit sample 23andme

However, there are a few places your information may continue to live. Under the regulatory standards that apply to clinical labs, Black said, 23andMe has to retain the bare lab test result for 10 years.

Ancestry

Ancestry stores your spit sample so it can be used for quality purposes, such as making sure the lab is running as it's supposed to and the testing is accurate. That also allows the company to update your results if more accurate sequencing technology comes onto the scene. 

To delete your DNA results on Ancestry, go to the DNA section at the top of the page — your test settings include a way to delete your results.  If you want to remove your spit sample completely, you need to call Ancestry's member services

delete via ancestry

Helix

Helix also stores your spit sample. To get rid of that spit sample, you can fill out a request with customer services. Helix alludes to retaining data for regulatory purposes in its privacy section, however.

In the settings of your Helix account, there steps for how to close an account. Doing that would cut off the flow of data to Helix's partners, Levin said. 

"Even if you had previously consented to share info with National Geographic, closing would close out the data-stream," she said.

Read the full privacy documents

For more information, here are the privacy pages and terms of service documents for the three tests described above:

This post was originally published in December 2017. 

SEE ALSO: I've taken AncestryDNA, 23andMe, and National Geographic genetics tests — here's how to choose one to try

DON'T MISS: How to delete your DNA data from genetics companies like 23andMe and Ancestry

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you hold in your pee for too long

23andMe plans to send DNA kits to try to reunite families separated at the border — but privacy issues loom

$
0
0

immigrant child family separation zero tolerance border

  • On Thursday, congressional representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) talked to 23andMe about possibility of using genetic testing to help reunite families separated at the border.
  • The next day, 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki tweeted that the company had offered to "donate kits and resources to do the genetic testing to help reconnect children with their parents."
  • A 23andMe representative told Business Insider on Friday that the company is currently working on a plan, but details have not yet been finalized.
  • There are several issues with tracking down family members via DNA testing, most of which involve privacy concerns.


The Trump administration has vowed to reunite the more than 2,300 migrant children and parents who've been forcibly separated as the result of the "zero-tolerance" policy enacted by the US Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice.

But the logistical challenges of bringing families back together are only beginning to emerge. Because the cases of parents and children have been handled by separate agencies — and some parents have already been deported — reuniting kids with their parents is a dauntingly difficult and complex task.

Members of Congress are searching for potential solutions. On Thursday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) talked to 23andMe about the possibility of using genetic testing to help reunite families, BuzzFeed News reported.

The next day, 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki tweeted that the company had offered to donate some of its spit-in-a-tube DNA-testing kits, along with "resources to do the genetic testing," to help families reconnect.

A 23andMe representative confirmed to Business Insider that the company is working on a plan for this, although "program details haven’t been finalized."

To use DNA testing for this purpose, people would have to carefully collect spit samples, then send them to a certified lab to be tested and submitted to 23andMe's database. It's unclear what would happen after that, or what a system that uses genetic data to match these separated families might look like.

"We are waiting to see the best way to follow up and make it happen," Wojcicki wrote in her tweet.

Helix DNA 6

Some experts have criticized the effort as unnecessary, however, suggesting that spreadsheets and photographs might be easier tools to accomplish the same goal.

"I find it astounding — astounding — that these families would have been separated in such a way that DNA would be required to reunite them," Thomas May, a professor of bioethics at Washington State University School of Medicine, told Business Insider.

If genetics tests do wind up being used for this purpose, consumer privacy concerns may arise.

Once genetic data has been submitted to a database like those kept by 23andMe, Ancestry, or one of the other myriad companies providing these services, it is difficult and in some cases virtually impossible to delete. Some experts fear the data can be hacked, used in a discriminatory manner by insurance companies or employers, or used to locate other family members without their consent.

That is one of privacy experts' main concerns about genetic data in general: that people beyond the individuals who choose to do a genetic test could be affected by its results. In the case of the Golden State Killer, for example, the suspect was tracked down using samples that a relative submitted to public genealogy database GEDmatch.

"You might be informed about the risks of doing a test like this, but other people might not," May said.

Importantly, 23andMe is a private database, not a public one like GEDmatch. But private data was hacked last month at DNA testing and genealogy site MyHeritage, compromising the email addresses and hashed passwords of 92 million users.

May said that although he believes 23andMe's offer to help unite families is well-intentioned, he hopes some ground rules will be established before the company gets involved.

"I think it would behoove [them] to supplement their good intentions by taking steps to make sure this travesty is not being used as a surreptitious way for authorities to enter individuals' genetic information into a law-enforcement database," May said. "I hope, therefore, that it is 23andMe's intention to destroy this information after its use for this discrete purpose of reunification, and refuse to enter this into a database."

SEE ALSO: How to delete your DNA data from genetics companies like 23andMe and Ancestry

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Mexican architects visualized Trump's proposed $25 billion wall to show how unrealistic it would be

I've taken AncestryDNA, 23andMe, and National Geographic genetics tests — here's how to choose one to try

$
0
0

Helix DNA 7

  • I tried DNA tests from 23andMe, Ancestry, and National Geographic to learn about my family's history and my health.
  • The tests vary in terms of what information they provide and how precise they are.
  • I'm often asked which test I'd recommend. My answer boils down to one question: What do you want to get out of the test? 
  • From migration patterns to how much DNA you have in common with a Neaderthal, here's what you can learn from each report. 

I've sent my spit off for more genetics tests than anyone else I know.

The tests analyzed the DNA in my saliva to find out a host of things about my ancestry and health. 

Genetic testing companies have proprietary sets of data and various ways of analyzing information, so each one I tried offered a distinct approach. One provided details about my great-grand relatives, while others listed how much Neanderthal DNA I have. 

Every so often, someone asks me which test I recommend. My answer boils down to one question: What do you want to get out of the test? 

Here's a breakdown of the three direct-to-consumer tests I've taken: AncestryDNA, 23andMe, and National Geographic's Geno 2.0 test. 

23andMe gave me a comprehensive picture of my health and ancestry that keeps growing

23andMe kit

23andMe currently offers two versions of its test: The $199 version comes with health and ancestry components, whereas the $99 version just has the ancestry test.

To analyze your DNA, 23andMe uses a technique called genotyping. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA in our genome — that's a lot of information to sift through — so genotyping technology looks for specific parts of DNA and pieces them together.

The health reports can tell you information about your physical traits (like if you're likely to have dimples or curly hair), wellness (such as how well you metabolize caffeine or if you're a sprinter), and carrier status for certain genetic mutations.

The FDA now allows 23andMe to provide reports on a person's genetic risk for certain diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and certain mutations associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. In total, the test currently has more than 80 reports, and more get added all the time. I often get emails telling me that a new test is ready for me — recently I got one that looks at my genetic risk for celiac disease. 

With 23andMe's ancestry reports, users have access to information about their ancestry composition (which geographic regions your genes align with), haplogroups (genetic populations that share a common ancestor), and Neanderthal ancestry. Customers also get access to something called a DNA Relatives tool, which 23andMe users can opt into as a way to connect with other users in the system who might be relatives.

In February, 23andMe updated its ancestry reports to provide more specific regional information. My report used to specify just Scandinavian ancestry, but now pinpoints Norway as a country where my ancestors lived within the past 200 years. The company also maps out how many generations ago your ancestors may have lived in a particular region. For example, I may have had a Finnish ancestor sometime in the mid-to-early 1800s or late 1700s, while my French and German ancestors date even earlier. 

Screen Shot 2018 03 05 at 10.02.40 AM

Verdict: If you're looking at this test as a science experiment, using it as a way to get involved in research, or viewing it as a chance to learn about your genetic health risks, then this is a fit for you. But if you opt for the full test, there are some considerations that patient groups and genetic counselorswould like users to take into account.

If you just want to know your ancestry percentages — especially now that they're more exact — and how much Neanderthal variants you have, the $99 version is a good bet.

AncestryDNA connects the dots between you and your ancestors 

AncestryDNA test box

Ancestry's test, as its name suggests, is all about family histories and genealogy. You won't find health and wellness reports in its $99 test, but you will find information about where your family comes from and how that lineage connects you to potential ancestors.

Like 23andMe, Ancestry uses genotyping technology to analyze your DNA. The service also helps you link up your DNA test to a self-reported family tree. 

There's a lot to discover within that data — for example, I was matched up with ancestors dating back to the 18th century, and could explore how I was connected to them. 

Screen Shot 2016 03 30 at 4.41.49 PM

If you simply want to know, say, what percent Scandinavian you are, Ancestry's site makes it easy to focus on those numbers. Those who want to dig deep into family trees can do that as well. I would definitely consider purchasing this test for a relative who enjoys researching family history.

Ancestry has also added a DNA story element that maps out your ancestors' migration patterns. My ancestors started moving to the Midwest in the US around 1825-1850. 

Screen Shot 2017 11 21 at 11.57.21 AM

Verdict: If the idea of tracing your family tree through the generations and connecting with distant relatives gets you excited — but you're less interested in health information — this is the test for you. 

National Geographic's test uses next-generation sequencing technology to inform its reports

Helix DNA 1National Geographic has an ancestry test called Geno 2.0.

The test — which currently costs $99.95 but originally was $199.95— is different from AncestryDNA and 23andMe in that it uses next-generation sequencing instead of genotyping technology. 

Unlike genotyping, which looks for specific parts of DNA and pieces them together, next-generation sequencing looks at only the protein-encoding parts of your genome, called the exome. The next-generation sequencing analyzes roughly 2% of those 3 billion base pairs. 

Based on next-generation sequencing, National Geographic's test provides three ancestry reports:

  • Regional, which tells you where your ancestors came from more than 500 years ago. (This didn't get into as many specifics in my case as AncestryDNA and 23andMe's tests did.)
  • Deep, which shows your ancestors' migration patterns thousands of years ago.
  • Hominin ancestry, which tells you how much DNA you have in common with a Neanderthal.

Helix DNA 5

The next-generation sequencing technique is also promising becuase it picks up additional information that could lead to more specific genetic-testing features in the future, especially as our knowledge of the genome and exome continues to grow.

The verdict: For what you get, the test doesn't have nearly the range that other ancestry tests have. And when not on sale, it's more expensive. National Geographic, however, says the revenue funds nonprofit "conservation, exploration, research, and education" efforts.

Privacy considerations

Another factor to consider when deciding which DNA test to take is the issue of privacy. The tests do, after all, deal with information that's fundamental and unique to every individual.

In a blog post published in December 2017, the FTC recommended reading the fine print.

"If you're thinking about buying an at-home DNA test kit, you owe it to yourself - and to family members who could be affected - to investigate the options thoroughly," it says.

James Hazel, a post-doctoral research fellow at Vanderbilt University's Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, has been looking into the privacy policies of consumer genetics tests. He said the FTC's suggestion is very important.

"We are good at clicking 'agree' and not reading the terms of service," he told Business Insider in December.

Questions to keep in mind when reading through the terms of service include: 

  • Who owns your DNA? 
  • Who gets to see your de-identified (not attached to your name) information? 
  • How is the data that's tied to your identifiable information used? 
  • Can you opt out of giving research partners your genetic data?
  • Can you wipe your information after taking a test?

There are other ancestry tests I have yet to try

The DNA-testing field is exploding. In the past few years, the number of people taking DNA tests has spiked — in total, more than 12 million people have now had their DNA sequenced, and almost 10 million of those tests happened since 2016.

So a growing number of tests are emerging that I haven't had a chance to try yet. For example, MyHeritage has a DNA test that's currently going for $49 (originally $99). Its tests, like Ancestry's, are focused on building family connections and trees. 

Others tests, like those of FamilyTree DNA (which offers tests from $59), are also geared toward people who want to find genetic links to relatives.

Each company has its own methods, algorithms, and data, which is why the reports differ. Because the three main direct-to-consumer genetics tests are around the same price, you should go with the one that will answer your most pressing questions.

This post was originally published in April 2017 and has been updated. 

SEE ALSO: I shipped my spit to AncestryDNA to see how much I could learn from my genes — and found out my family history is more complex than I thought

DON'T MISS: I revisited my 23andMe DNA test results that can now tell if you're at an increased risk of diseases — here's what it was like

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists found a genetic mutation that makes it healthier for some people to be vegetarian

A blockbuster gene editing tool could cause more damage than experts thought

$
0
0

genetics DNA CRISPR research study

  • A new study has concluded that genetic editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, can cause significantly greater havoc than experts thought.
  • It could cause enough damage to threaten the health of patients who would one day receive CRISPR-based therapy.
  • The study found thousands of deleted DNA bases, some of which can silence genes that should be active and activate genes that should be silent, including cancer-causing genes.
  • Within the first 20 minutes after the study was released, the three publicly traded CRISPR companies lost more than $300 million in value.

From the earliest days of the CRISPR-Cas9 era, scientists have known that the first step in how it edits genomes — snipping DNA — creates an unholy mess: Cellular repairmen frantically try to fix the cuts by throwing random chunks of DNA into the breach and deleting other random bits. Research published on Monday suggests that's only the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg: CRISPR-Cas9 can cause significantly greater genetic havoc than experts thought, the study concludes, perhaps enough to threaten the health of patients who would one day receive CRISPR-based therapy.

The results come hard on the heels of two studies that identified a related issue: Some CRISPR'd cells might be missing a key anti-cancer mechanism and therefore be able to initiate tumors.

The DNA damage found in the new study included deletions of thousands of DNA bases, including at spots far from the edit. Some of the deletions can silence genes that should be active and activate genes that should be silent, including cancer-causing genes.

The DNA chaos that CRISPR unleashes has been "seriously underestimated," said geneticist Allan Bradley of England's Wellcome Sanger Center, who led the study. "This should be a wake-up call."

Leading CRISPR companies scrambled to play down the latest threat to what they hope will be a multibillion-dollar business  and to their stock prices, but investors reacted with alarm. Within the first 20 minutes of when the study was released, the three publicly traded CRISPR companies lost more than $300 million in value.

The companies questioned whether the CRISPR-caused DNA damage reported in the new study applied to the kind of cells they're planning to CRISPR. They emphasized that if genomic scrambling is at all common then it should also be seen in earlier forms of genome-editing such as zinc fingers and TALENs (but apparently isn't). And they insisted they're on the case.

"We're not Pollyannaish about this," said geneticist Tom Barnes, chief innovation officer at Intellia Therapeutics. For its mouse experiments, Intellia analyzes edited genomes for collateral damage both near the editing target and tens of thousands of DNA letters away, he said, but "we have not seen any [cancer-causing] transformation of these cells, even with all the edits we've introduced."

In a statement, Editas Medicine spokeswoman Cristi Barnett said the possibility of genetic chaos from CRISPR is "an interesting topic" that the company "actively examine[s]." The reported DNA havoc, she said, is not "specifically problematic in our work to make CRISPR-based medicines." CRISPR Therapeutics did not respond to requests for comment.

Academic scientists were less dismissive of the new study, in Nature Biotechnology. One leading CRISPR developer called it "well-done and credible,""a cautionary note to the [genome-editing] community," and consistent with other research showing that the DNA cuts that CRISPR makes, called double-stranded breaks, "can induce the types of genomic DNA rearrangements and deletions they report." He asked not to be identified so as not to jeopardize business relationships with genome-editing companies.

But just as critics of last month's studies asked why, if CRISPR'd cells can initiate cancer, no CRISPR'd mice had turned up with tumors, so scientists raised similar questions about the new genomic havoc finding: Why don't scientists see it when they analyze the DNA of CRISPR'd cells?

"You find what you look for," said Bradley. "No one is looking at the impact [of these DNA changes] on downstream genes."

CRISPR

And few studies conduct full-out genome sequencing of CRISPR'd cells. Moreover, scientists typically search for one form of the collateral damage the Sanger study found — deletions of thousands of DNA bases (the double helix's famous A's, T's, C's, and G's) — using a standard technique called PCR, which makes millions of DNA copies. But to work, PCR must attach to a "binding site" on DNA; CRISPR sometimes deletes that binding site, said Bradley, whose team used a different technique to analyze the double helix for collateral damage from CRISPR.

The Sanger scientists didn't set out to find collateral DNA damage from CRISPR. As they investigated how CRISPR might change gene expression, a "weird thing" showed up, Bradley said: The target DNA was accurately changed, but that set off a chain reaction that engulfed genes far from the target. The scientists therefore changed course.

When they aimed CRISPR at different targets in mouse embryonic stem cells, mouse blood-making cells, and human retinal cells, "extensive on-target genomic damage [was] a common outcome," they wrote in their paper. In one case, genomes in about two-thirds of the CRISPR'd cells showed the expected small-scale inadvertent havoc, but 21 percent had DNA deletions of more than 250 bases and up to 6,000 bases long.

Since therapeutic uses of CRISPR would edit the genomes of billions of cells in, say, a patient's liver, even rare DNA damage "makes it likely that one or more edited cells … would be endowed with an important [disease-causing] lesion," the scientists wrote.

Nature Biotechnology took a year to publish the paper, after asking Bradley numerous variations of "are you sure?" and "did you consider this?" and asking him to run additional experiments, Bradley said. The results all held up.

The one U.S. clinical trial using CRISPR'd cells began recruiting patients this year. It will use CRISPR to make immune cells, removed from patients with any of four types of cancer, attack telltale molecules on the tumor cells' surface. Asked what genome analysis he plans to do, lead investigator Dr. Edward Stadtmauer of the University of Pennsylvania said, "We are doing extensive testing of the final cellular product as well as the cells within the patient."

The possibility of adverse consequences from CRISPR'd cells has caused some company officials to argue that if, say, their therapy cures a child of a devastating disease, but increases her risk of cancer, that might be an acceptable trade-off.

That argument may well prevail. In 2003, however, when a boy in a gene therapy trial in France developed leukemia because the repair gene landed in the wrong place in his genome and activated a cancer-causing gene, it shut down gene therapy development on both sides of the Atlantic for years.

SEE ALSO: A blockbuster gene-editing tool has been linked to cancer — here's how worried you should be

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the World Cup soccer ball looks so different

Genetically modified 'designer babies' might be okay, according to a top ethics council

$
0
0

baby embryo egg sperm fetus pregnancy

  • A leading UK bioethics group called the Nuffield Council released a report saying that under certain circumstances, editing the DNA of human embryos might be ethically acceptable.
  • The report said that deciding on the ethical and legal framework for this is important now, as it may soon be scientifically possible to rewrite the DNA of children before they are born.
  • That's due to genetic editing technologies like CRISPR.
  • But if we're going to edit human DNA, we need to ensure it's done in a way that doesn't increase inequality in society, according to the report.


It may soon be possible for parents to edit the genes of their children before they're born, changing their DNA in ways that could affect their health and enhance their senses, strength, or even intelligence.

The situation is so close to becoming reality, in fact, that genetic experts have pushed in recent years for more discussion about whether societies will permit that sort of modification, as well as rules about what changes are permissible.

On Tuesday, a leading bioethics organization in the UK released a report on the topic, which concluded that under certain circumstances, it could be ethically acceptable to genetically modify humans.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent organization that evaluates ethical questions in biology and medicine. The group's report suggested there could be permissible reasons to modify human embryos, even in ways that go beyond eliminating serious disease.

While that conclusion may sound like it opens the door for "designer babies," the Nuffield Council's report specifies that such modifications should only be acceptable if two essential conditions are met. Genetic changes would need to be made with the welfare of the modified children in mind and these changes should not increase disadvantage or division in society.

Still, a cautious acceptance of the genetic transformation humanity is big.

CRISPR

Making genetically modified humans possible

The ability to edit DNA code is not new. But the discovery of the genetic editing tool CRISPR, which emerged from several discoveries between 2007 and 2012 and had captivated the scientific community by 2015, changed the discussion.

This tool can snip specific parts of genetic code out and replace them with new segments, which could allow scientists to eliminate diseases or give people new traits. Using CRISPR is far cheaper and more accurate than previous means of editing DNA, so it essentially revolutionizes our ability to rewrite life's code.

Using CRISPR, scientists could potentially modify the genes in sperm, eggs, or embryos. The edited embryos could be implanted in a womb via an assisted reproduction process like in vitro fertilization, and the babies born would then carry those edited genes throughout their lives and even pass them on to their children.

The science that would enable this process isn't quite there yet. CRISPR is not accurate enough to be used in this way, and a recent study found that the tool may at times cause more unexpected or unwanted effects than we think.

But researchers think we'll be able to get around accuracy problems and that eventually, editing human DNA will be a real possibility. The technology is already advanced enough that in the US, Europe, and China, researchers have experimented with modifying the DNA of human embryos — though in ways that will not lead to modified children being born, for now.

As the Nuffield Council report authors wrote, making these changes could result in permanent changes not just for the genetically edited individuals, but for all future humans, since that altered DNA would then be passed on.

The pressing question is how we'll use this new ability.

fetus baby womb uterus light shutterstock_133423673

Ways we might change humanity

The report's authors wrote that the most obvious reason to edit the DNA of an embryo would be to ensure that child isn't born with a debilitating or fatal genetic disease. There are certain situations in which genetic editing might be the only way to avoid having a baby with a deadly condition such as Huntington's disease.

In a poll last summer, most Americans said they were comfortable with the idea of using genetic editing to cure disease. 

Most diseases aren't simple. Many conditions, including Alzheimer's and various forms of cancer, have complex causes, and a number of genes and environmental factors are involved.

The researchers wrote that we might decide it's okay to make people less predisposed to complex diseases like that.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Nuffield Council report, however, is the suggestion that there could be ethical ways to edit the human genome that go beyond curing genetic disease.

They wrote that if or when we find a way to successfully edit DNA in human embryos, it might become acceptable to make people immune to certain diseases or to help them tolerate extreme environments. That could come in handy in a world with a changing climate or if we decide to try to create colonies in space or on Mars.

The report even said that people might decide to start using these tools to enhance senses or abilities, creating enhanced humans.

To be clear, the Nuffield Council report authors aren't endorsing all of these uses. But they aren't declaring them inherently unethical either. They want people to understand the full scope of potential changes under discussion.

Researchers familiar with genetic editing technology think we'll almost certainly see efforts to enhance the human genome. If you start with eliminating disease, it becomes easier to imagine making children healthier. Once you do that, it becomes easier to imagine making them more athletic, stronger, or smarter, according toStephen Hsu, a physicist and an advisor to the genomics researchers at BGI, a major genetics research group in China.

Hsu is a member of BGI's Cognitive Genomics Lab, a research group trying to unlock the genetic codes that account for complex traits like height, susceptibility to conditions like obesity, and — perhaps most controversially — intelligence. As he told Business Insider, if some people start modifying DNA, others will be tempted to follow suit.

"Maybe even before it becomes a reality, there will be rumors that rich people are doing this," Hsu said.

dna editing CRISPR human embryos

The need to establish an ethical framework now 

The Nuffield Council authors said that the wide range of future genetic-editing possibilities means we need to establish an ethical framework now.

From an ethical standpoint, they wrote that editing DNA should only be acceptable once certain conditions have been met.

The physical and social well-being of genetically edited people need to be protected. Edits should only improve health. But it's also important to ensure that edited humans are treated the same as any other in society and not discriminated against.

At the same time, ethical use of this technology shouldn't increase discrimination or inequality. This potential consequence shouldn't be overlooked. Say certain edits make some disabilities less common; that could lead to less treatment or support for disabled people — or to more discrimination against these groups. And if only the wealthy can afford "enhanced" genetic embryos, that could create more class-based segregation in society.

Because of that, the report authors conclude that editing human embryos "would only be ethically acceptable if carried out in accordance with principles of social justice and solidarity."

In the report, they make some suggestions about how lawmakers and research institutions could ensure that happens. But of course, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about whether people can make ethical decisions when it comes to transforming humanity.

As bioethicist George Annas previously told Business Insider, "I hate to say we'll never know what [an ideal genome] is, but we're nowhere near that."

"Humans have more flaws than we know what to do with," Annas added. "One of them is that we don't know what it would mean to make a better baby."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you hold in your pee for too long

Summer sun and fatty foods can damage our DNA — here's what you can do about it

$
0
0
The Conversation

woman eating sandwich at beach

  • Summersunburns and fatty foods can severely damage our DNA— our bodies accumulate quadrillions of new DNA injuries every day. 
  • Our DNA is held together by protective regions at the ends of our chromosomes called telomeres.
  • UV exposure and obesity can shorten telomeres and can trigger cancer and aging.
  • Bathing our skin in UV light causes an onslaught of damage — the skin cells can commit suicide and flake off, or worse, remain and become cancerous.
  • A diet rich in antioxidants, found in fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes, can counter metabolic damage and protect telomeres.

Today, your body will accumulate quadrillions of new injuries in your DNA. The constant onslaught of many forms of damage, some of which permanently mutates your genes, could initiate cancer and prove fatal. Yet all is not doomed: The lives we lead determine how well our cells can handle this daily molecular erosion.

Certain cells are particularly at risk. Your skin, for instance, is constantly being bombarded by high-energy UV light that wreaks havoc on your DNA. This UV light should not be taken lightly — 1 in 5 Americans develops skin cancer in their lifetime, more than any other cancer. So as you're hitting the beach with sugary margaritas in hand, remember that deadly skin cancer rates are at record-highs, as are cancers associated with obesity.

I am a medical student in Dr. Patricia Opresko's lab at the University of Pittsburgh, which stands at the intersection of two Nobel Prize-winning disciplines: DNA repair and telomeres. Telomeres are protective regions at the ends of our chromosomes that hold the DNA together like the plastic cap on your shoelace. Her lab's work is revealing the molecular machinery that repairs your telomeres after UV and metabolic (related to energy extraction from food) damage, and the many ways it can go awry.

Telomeres: Where chromosomes end and our research begins

shutterstock_710795275

In the minute you've been reading, hundreds of trillions of new lesions have occurred in your DNA. Fortunately, a special class of proteins is vigilantly detecting and repairing these errors.

Repair is particularly important in telomeres.

The telomere is no small thing, at least not figuratively: Their length is correlated with many symptoms of aging. Human studies have shown that people with shorter telomeres suffer worsened immunity and heart disease along with greater mortality. With every year, your telomeres get shorter, some cells stop replicating, and these symptoms worsen. We do not yet know whether telomeres are the secret to aging. What we do know is that UV and metabolic damage, which further shorten telomeres, can trigger cancer and aging; when you break the plastic cap, you unravel the whole shoelace.

Bathing our skin in UV light causes an onslaught of damage. In fact, regular skin cells from older adults have about as many mutations as cancer cells. At best, the sun's dangerous rays can cause the skin cells to commit suicide and flake off. At worst, those cells remain and become cancerous.

One such "molecular sunburn" is called a photoproduct, which forms when the energy from UV light causes two adjacent units of your DNA to stick together, potentially interfering with its normal function. Ten thousand photoproducts occur in every skin cell every day due to sun exposure.

You (and your telomeres) are what you eat

shutterstock_50543917

Telomeres are especially prone to such damage. And although telomeres don't contain valuable body-building instructions like genes, when photoproducts damage our telomeres, a cell can turn on a special protein called telomerase which makes the telomeres longer. This might sound like a way to stay forever young. After all, aren't short telomeres the culprit of aging? But in extending its telomeres, the cell no longer has a limit to how many times it can replicate. This explains why over 85% of all cancers exhibit extended telomeres. It seems that while longer telomeres are the key to our immortality, under the wrong circumstances, they can also be our downfall. When we fail to use UV protective sunscreen to safeguard our telomeres, we are, quite literally, flying too close to the sun.

Your metabolism, which breaks down food to extract energy, generates high-energy particles called free radicals that, like UV light, can distort the units in your DNA. This, in turn, wears away at your telomeres. Such metabolic damage accumulates over a lifetime of eating. Scientists believe this is why older, overweight adults, who have spent many years metabolizing more food than average, have a far greater risk of telomere shortening and cancer. Moreover, it seems diets rich in antioxidants, found in fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes, which counter that metabolic damage, actually protect telomeres as well.

Lengthening our telomeres and our lives

shutterstock_457727173

While our telomere length once seemed pre-determined by our genes, the more medical researchers learn, the more we realize the impact of our lifestyles. Smoking, UV-light exposure, obesity, lack of exercise, stress and poor diet can all diminish our telomeres, squandering our molecular fountain of youth.

In Dr. Patricia Opresko's lab, we are investigating how telomere repair keeps up with the damage wrought by our daily lives, as well as the dire consequences when it no longer can. The hope is that by better understanding the mechanisms of cancer formation, we can design better therapies. Yet our findings are important not only for treating cancer, but also for preventing it.

My grandfather lost his battle against an aggressive form of skin cancer just weeks before my bar mitzvah. My grandmother, who valued education above all else, died of cancer days prior to my high school graduation. Their untimely loss inspired me to take up research in the very center where they received their care. Every cancer cell I study, and every hallway I walk, I am reminded of my grandparents and the countless other like them that could benefit from our research.

As King Henry VIII noted, time is the only invincible opponent. My grandparents are among the billions who succumbed to the onslaught of time. In studying telomeres, many are searching for an elusive fountain of youth that can reverse aging and overcome death. Yet the answers that we uncover are far less fanciful. It is not our telomeres that shorten our lifespans but our lives that shorten our telomeres. As many as half of medical deaths in the United States are preventable. Small choices as simple as using UV-A and UV-B protective sunscreen, eating smarter and exercising regularly can go a long way in empowering us to take command of our health.

We still have much to learn before we can use the secrets of our telomeres to surpass the limitations of our genetic makeup. But there are countless steps you can take today to protect your telomeres from the sun and from yourself. Research barters in knowledge, but it is action, inspired by knowledge, which can keep families like mine together for longer.

SEE ALSO: 10 places on your body you didn't realize could get sunburned

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Rolex watches are so expensive


You can track down your relatives in foreign countries, even if you don't know their names — here's how

$
0
0

Ancestors

  • Your ancestors got you to where you are today, whether or not you know who they are. 
  • There are entire industries with resources to help you locate your ancestors, making it easy to piece together your family history.
  • Author Matt Crossman tracked down his ancestors in Italy — his tips include using experts, referring to family stories, and being prepared for the unexpected.

 

One Day in October I drove into the Alps of Northern Italy to a teensy village called Camposilvano. I parked at one end of town and could see clear to the other, only a few hundred yards away. The population here is listed at 65, and I wondered if that was inflated.

I visited to look for traces of my great-grandmother. Camposilvano was her hometown, where her family had owned a hotel called the Albergo Alpino... maybe. I wasn't sure. After months of investigating my family history, I wasn't sure of anything. I turned onto a residential street the approximate width of a shopping cart. There was a pickup truck blocking it, and a man unloading firewood from its bed. I stopped my car and walked toward him. "Excuse me!" I yelled. "Do you speak English?"

He said yes and headed to greet me. He appeared to be in his early 30s and was wearing a red T-shirt, blue jeans, and sneakers. We shook hands. He introduced himself as Costantino Rigon. "I'm an American," I said. "I'm doing family research. My relatives might be from around here. My great-grandmother's last name was Stoffella."

His eyes bulged. "My mom was a Stoffella," he said.

I reached into the front seat of my rental SUV and grabbed a legal notebook full of genealogical research. Costantino saw the name Luigi Stoffella — my great-great-grandfather. His eyes bulged again. He said his great-grandfather's name was Luigi.

"No way," I said.

No way, he thought.

Did I really just drive into the Alps, yell to a guy on the street, and find that we're related?

That encounter was the climax of months of genealogical research. Everything in this story happened to me, and seven months later, I still can't believe it. I almost hesitate to peg this as a genealogy story because it felt, as it was happening, more like a dumb luck story. But I have since learned that many incredible genealogical stories sound like dumb luck stories. Kismet abounds in this field, and it'll probably find you, too, if you go exploring.

If you've always wanted to visit the Old Country — wherever your Old Country is — you can pick up some tips from my trip: from not even knowing my grandparents' real names to shaking hands with a distant cousin in a remote Alpine village.

Tip 1: There are tons of resources and experts to help you find your relatives

The desire to comb through the past is universal. The internet has made genealogy easier and more popular. According to Time, genealogy websites are the second-most visited website category, after porn. Likewise, ABC News has reported that genealogy is Americans' second-most popular hobby, after gardening.

Since 2012, when Ancestry.com started offering DNA tests, it has completed 7 million of them, including one for my brother. His results showed we are 72% Europe West, 9% Great Britain, 6% Ireland/Scotland/Wales, and 13% who knows what. But the DNA results only tell us vaguely where we came from. I wanted to know from whom.

An entire industry has sprung up to help you dig into your family story: researchers, books, TV shows and online tutorials. The first step, experts say, is to conduct as much research here as you can. Talk to relatives. Look in attics. Sign up with Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.com. Straight-up dig.

Tip 2: Family stories may be flawed, but you should collect as many as possible

I didn't know how twisted my family stories were until I found documents that disproved much of what I thought I knew about my ancestors Ï such as my grandma's name, my grandpa's name, where my great-grandparents were from, and how many kids they had.

My questions really started at my grandmother's funeral, where someone had put together a display of mementos from her life. I called her Grandma Rae, short for Rachel. One of the documents at her funeral was a report card with the name Enrica, not Rae or Rachel. "Who the hell is Enrica?" I asked.

I was told that Enrica was my grandma's original name. One day, an elementary school teacher said something like, What kind of name for a girl is Enrica? We're going to call you Rachel. Rachel became Rae, and she went by that for the rest of her life. That sounded like it was half-true, so I tried to prove that with Census reports. But they didn't help: She was called Henretta there, likely a misspelling based on a Census taker's inability to understand a thick Italian accent.

Whatever my grandma's name was, she moved to Detroit and married my grandfather, whose name I knew was Ed Stanford. Except there was another document at my grandma's funeral, next to her report card, bearing the name Ed Steckel. Naturally, my next question was: "Who the hell is Ed Steckel?"

I've heard two versions of what happened. One is that my grandfather changed Steckel to Stanford because of anti-German sentiment during World War I. That's dull but probably true. The other is that his brother worked at one of the Big 3 automakers, quit, tried to get his job back, and was told no. He reapplied with a new last name, got the job, and my grandfather went along with it. I love that story, even if it's probably false.

Just as I never had reason to doubt my grandparents' names, I never questioned my Italian heritage. Everyone on that side of the family always said we were Italian. My grandmother spoke Italian, her maiden name was Rigotti, and she had brothers named Guido and Tulio. You don't get more Italian than that, right?

Then I found a photocopy of my great-grandfather's passport. It listed his home country as Austria, not Italy. He was born and raised in an area that was then in the Austro-Hungarian empire but was annexed by Italy decades after he left.

I can't stop thinking about this: For all of my life, I thought I had an Italian grandmother named Rae Stanford, but in a way I actually had an Austrian grandmother named Enrica Steckel.

Debora Hill, director and founder of the Pallante Center for Italian Research, says amateur researchers should seek out original documents, as they can be used to confirm or refute what you know. "Family stories often come with a lot of things that aren't right," says Hill, who has made 10 research trips to Italy. "They've been twisted through the years."

Tip 3: Take your research with you

The name thing intrigued me. If I unearthed this much in America, what would I find if I went to Italy?

Last year, I cobbled together writing assignments in France, Belgium, Austria, and Germany. I hatched a plan to visit Italy, too, in part because I wanted to keep looking into my family history and in part because, um, it's Italy.

As I packed, I stuffed my computer bag full of hard copies of genealogical documents. I also uploaded copies of ancient pictures onto my phone. But the information wasn't organized in any meaningful way — a rookie mistake, especially considering I was going to Italy.

Jenny Tonks, an accredited genealogist for Italy research, recommends using pedigree software to build your family tree and to bring both a hard copy and digital copy with you. Asking someone to help you fill in blank spot(s) on a family tree is better than simply asking when a certain relative was born. "Italians appreciate symbols," she says. "The pedigree is a symbol that carries great weight in a family-centered culture like Italy's. If you want your request to a busy government records office to get noticed, sending in a pedigree chart with the blank spaces highlighted is often the best way to get your request noticed and receive a response."

Tip 4: Be open, trusting, and prepared for the unexpected

Before I left for Europe, I booked three nights in Mezzolombardo, where my great-grandfather was born and raised. I envisioned a working vacation — I would eat pasta, look for records about my ancestors, and write about whatever I found. I left my schedule blank so I could follow my investigation wherever it took me.

"My best advice I can give for visiting the Old Country is to shirk off the American conventions and expectations of timeliness and planning," says Rich Venezia, a professional genealogist who specializes in Italian research. "While, yes, planning in advance is good in terms of research and hotels, there's inevitably going to be a festa, or the church is closed for renovations, or sheep crossing the highway. If we visit the Old Country on an American schedule, we'll never be able to have the type of authentic experience that we crave."

I arrived in Mezzolombardo on a crisp fall afternoon. I parked at my bed and breakfast, got out of the car, and slowly spun around in 360 degrees of visual overload. Imagine mountains shaped like a majestic, craggy horseshoe. Then imagine a river bisecting that horseshoe. Put vineyards on either side of the river, and then drop two old, old, old towns snug against the sides of the horseshoe. Mezzolombardo sits tucked against the south side.

I found the 167-year-old church in which my great-grandfather was baptized. (By coincidence, the church's name translates as St. Peter's. I live in St. Peters, Missouri.) I peeked into the church's baptistry and imagined a priest sticking his hand in holy water and rubbing it on my great-grandfather's soft head. I walked outside and onto the plaza in front of the church. If I was going to walk in the same place as my ancestors, this was the most likely spot.

My great-grandparents were turning into three-dimensional people for the first time.

SEE ALSO: All blue-eyed people have a single ancestor in common

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A diehard Mac user switches to PC

DNA testing company 23andMe has signed a $300 million deal with a drug giant — here's how to delete your data if that freaks you out

$
0
0

Helix DNA 6

  • Popular DNA testing companies like Ancestry and 23andMe can — and frequently do — sell your data to drug makers.
  • On Wednesday, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline announced it was acquiring a $300 million stake in 23andMe — making that connection much more explicit.
  • If that new has you wondering about how your own genetic material is being used, here's a guide to deleting your DNA sample and data from 23andMe, Ancestry, and Helix.


Popular spit-in-a-tube genetics testing companies like Ancestry and 23andMe can — and frequently do — sell your data to drug makers. But on Wednesday, one of those partnerships became much more explicit: pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline announced it was acquiring a $300 million stake in 23andMe.

As part of a 4-year deal between the two companies, GlaxoSmithKline will comb 23andMe's genetic data to look for potential new drugs to develop, also referred to as drug targets. It will also use the genetic data to inform how patients are selected for clinical trials.

If that news has you thinking about how your own genetic material is being used for research, know that although the DNA you submit to these services is ostensibly anonymized. However, leaks can happen, and privacy advocates note such incidents could allow your data to find its way elsewhere, perhaps without your knowledge. 

Deleting your genetic data from these platforms can be a surprisingly tricky process. Here's how to navigate removing your spit sample and DNA data from the databases maintained by 23andMe, Ancestry, and Helix.

23andMe may keep your spit and data for up to a decade

23andMekitThe core service provided by most commercial genetic tests is built on the extraction of your DNA from your spit — that's how you get the results about your health and ancestry information.

After registering your spit sample online with 23andMe, you will be asked if you'd like your saliva to be stored or discarded. But you are not asked the same question about your raw genetic data — the DNA extracted from your spit.

Based on the wording of a document called the "Biobanking Consent Document," it's a bit unclear what happens to that raw DNA once you decide to have 23andMe either store or toss your spit. 

Here's the statement's exact language:

"By choosing to have 23andMe store either your saliva sample or DNA extracted from your saliva, you are consenting to having 23andMe and its contractors access and analyze your stored sample, using the same or more advanced technologies."

That leaves a bit of a grey area as far as what 23andMe has the ability to keep, and how they can use your DNA information. If your spit or DNA sample is stored, the company can hold onto it for between one and 10 years, "unless we notify you otherwise," the Biobanking Consent Document states.

Still, you can request that the company discard your spit. To do so, go to its Customer Care page, navigate to "Accounts and Registration," scroll to the bottom of the bulleted list of options, and select the last bullet titled "Requesting Account Closure."

Once there, you must submit a request to have your spit sample destroyed and/or have your account closed.

Ancestry won't toss your spit unless you call, but you can delete your DNA results

AncestryIf you want to delete your DNA test results with Ancestry, use the navigation bar at the top of the homepage to select "DNA." On the page with your name at the top, scroll to the upper right corner, select "Settings," then go to "Delete Test Results" on the right side column.

According to the company's latest privacy statement, doing this will result in Ancestry deleting the following within 30 days: "All genetic information, including any derivative genetic information (ethnicity estimates, genetic relative matches, etc.) from our production, development, analytics, and research systems."

However, if you opted into Ancestry's informed "Consent to Research" when you signed up, the company says it cannot wipe your genetic information from any "active or completed research projects." But it will prevent your DNA from being used for new research.

To direct the company to discard your spit sample, you must call Member Services and request that they toss it.

Helix will toss your spit upon request, but can keep data 'indefinitely'

In its most recently updated Privacy Policy, San Francisco-based consumer genetics testing company Helix states that it may "store your DNA indefinitely."

The company also stores your saliva sample. You can request that your spit be destroyed by contacting Helix's Customer Care. There, you'll find a request form that looks similar to the one 23andMe uses.

DON'T MISS: Why pharma giant GSK just made a $300 million bet on 23andMe's approach to finding new medicines

SEE ALSO: 23andMe is rolling out a huge initiative for people with ADHD and depression — but psychologists are worried

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Super-Earths are real and they could be an even better place for life than Earth

A 9/11 victim has been identified nearly 17 years after one of the worst domestic terror attacks in modern US history

$
0
0

Tribute in Light 9/11

  • Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, medical examiners have determined one victim's identity using new DNA testing methods.
  • Bone fragments recovered at Ground Zero in 2001 have been linked to 26-year-old securities analyst Scott Johnson using tests that recovered DNA from degraded samples.
  • Johnson's parents were notified of the revelation after they returned from a vacation to Europe.

Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, medical examiners have determined one victim's identity using new DNA testing methods.

Bone fragments recovered at Ground Zero in 2001 have been linked to 26-year-old Scott Johnson using tests that recovered DNA from degraded samples, New York Daily News reported Wednesday.

Johnson, the 1,642nd victim from the attacks, reportedly worked as a securities analyst at an investment bank on the 89th floor of the World Trade Center south tower. Sixty-seven other employees died in the attack.

Johnson's parents were notified of the revelation after they returned from a vacation to Europe.

"It was kind of a blow to the gut," Margaret, Johnson's mother, said to The Daily News. "Obviously, it brought up all those sad days we endured. The only thing we've had of his all these years was his wallet."

"My husband and I were very appreciative of the efforts of the medical examiner's office for keeping a promise they made to all of us that they would keep searching … keep looking for the remains of our loved ones."

The successful identification was attributed to an improved method of breaking "bone samples down to small pieces to get access to the cell," Mark Desire, the assistant director of the city medical examiner's Department of Forensic Biology, said to The Daily News.

"We are also using new digestion chemicals to remove the DNA from the fragment," Desire added.

Over 1,100 remains await identification, according to officials, but for around 100 of them, linking them to a person will be a near-impossible feat due to the absence of DNA reference samples. But medical examiners like Desire say they will continue their efforts to identify the victims.

"We realize that this is an investigation we are never going to be able to completely close," Desire said. "But we will continue to try to ID the remains we had no hopes of identifying in the past."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 science facts that 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' totally ignored

Here's how the military will identify soldiers from the remains released by North Korea

$
0
0

repatriation north korea

NEW YORK (AP) — The US military remains released by North Korea on Friday will be sent to a military lab in Hawaii, where they'll enter a system that routinely identifies service members from decades-old conflicts.

Identifications depend on combining multiple lines of evidence, and they can take time: Even after decades, some cases remain unresolved.

Dog tags found with the remains can help, and even scraps of clothing can be traced to the material used in uniforms. Teeth can be matched with dental records. Bones can be used to estimate height. And the distinctive shape of a clavicle bone can be matched to records of X-rays taken decades ago to look for tuberculosis, said Charles Prichard, a spokesman for the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency.

If a DNA analysis is called for, samples are sent to a military DNA lab at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Tiny samples of bone or teeth, no bigger than the amount of bone in the last joint of the pinkie finger, are enough to yield usable DNA, said Timothy McMahon, who oversees the Dover lab as director of Defense Department DNA Operations.

Korean War US Army

Each sample is sanded to remove surface contamination, ground to the consistency of baby powder, and then treated with a substance that dissolves the bone and leaves the DNA for analysis. That DNA is then compared with genetic samples from living people who are related to the missing.

The military has been collecting DNA from such family members since 1992, and has reached the relatives of 92% of the 8,100 service members who were listed as missing at the end of the Korean War, McMahon said.

The goal is to find bits of DNA in common between the known relatives and the unidentified remains, suggesting both belong to a particular lineage. One analysis develops a profile that combines what's found at 23 spots in the DNA, for example.

By analyzing different kinds of DNA, lab scientists can look for markers passed down by generations of women, or of men, or of both sexes. The lab once linked remains to a great-great-great-great-grandniece who initially had no idea she was related to the missing service member, McMahon said.

Once a link is made, the lab estimates how strongly it suggests the remains belong to a particular person, and send the results back to Hawaii. There, it's combined with the other lines of evidence.

"We're just one spoke in a wheel to make the identification," McMahon said. "We all work together."

army rangers korean war 3rd ranger company

Since Oct. 1, the Hawaii lab has identified 25 service members from the Korean War, part of the 119 identifications made overall in that time period, Prichard said. For the 12 months before that, 42 sets of remains from the Korean War were accounted for, which includes briefing the relatives in person, out of 183 overall.

The agency identifies remains from not only the Korean War, but also World War II through the first Gulf War in Iraq.

How long does it take?

If a clavicle bone can be matched to an X-ray, it might be done in just three days, Prichard said. But in other cases, it can take decades. He noted some remains recovered from North Korea from 1990 to 2005 are still awaiting identification.

For Jan Curran, of Gilbert, Arizona, the new remains turned over by North Korea have stirred hope.

Curran has no memory of her father, naval aviator Lt. Charles Garrison, who was shot down over Korea and captured in May 1951. He died in captivity, and no remains have been identified.

Curran, 70, has spent decades working to give him a proper burial. She's attended scores of meetings for families of those missing in action in Korea. She was the driving force in the late 1990s in getting several of her family members — including her sister, an aunt, an uncle and cousins — to join her in giving DNA samples to the military in an effort to identify her father's remains, should they be found.

Will their long wait now come to an end?

"We know it's a small chance, but we can't help but hope," she said, her voice breaking with emotion. "It would be wonderful. It's too much to hope for.

"It's amazing, after all these years, how much it can still hurt not to have him."

___

Margery Beck in Omaha, Nebraska, contributed to this report.

SEE ALSO: US-North Korea tensions are ramping up, but the horrors of the Korean War are alive and well

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

A medical diagnostics startup that wants to use CRISPR technology to detect diseases just raised $23 million in venture funding

$
0
0

The science team behind Mammoth Biosciences

  • Mammoth Biosciences announced a $23 million funding round on Tuesday, setting the company up to try and make a dent in the $45 billion global disease detection market.
  • The startup uses CRISPR-based technology to detect the presence of diseases like HPV and malaria in DNA from blood or urine samples. 
  • The technology is easily transportable and doesn't require expensive machines to run tests.

Mammoth Biosciences' motto is simple: to make up-to-date diagnostics simple, accessible and affordable.

"If you think about what we're offering it's kind of like a pregnancy test," said Trevor Martin, co-founder and CEO of Mammoth Biosciences. But instead of tracking hormones that indicates whether a person is pregnant or not, it tracks the presence of diseases like HPV or malaria. 

On Tuesday, Mammoth announced that they’ve raised $23M, led by top Silicon Valley firm Mayfield Partners as well as venture firms NFX and 8VC. Mammoth is trying to make a mark in the $45 billion global disease detection market, dominated by heavyweights like Roche, Abbott, Siemens and Johnson & Johnson 

Martin came up with the idea for the company just over a year ago with Stanford University classmate Ashley Tehranchi. They then connected with PhD students Janice Chen, Lucas Harrington and biochemistry professor Jennifer Doudna at UC Berkeley and calibrated the use of a novel gene-editing tool called CRISPR for disease diagnostics.

CRISPR is a component of bacteria immune systems that when paired with a Cas-protein, can identify and chop up the DNAs and RNAs of harmful invading viruses. Scientists have recently used the CRISPR-Cas complex as a tool to edit the genes of yeast and mice. 

Doudna, Chen and Harrington found earlier this year that CRISPR in conjunction with Cas12 and Cas 13 proteins can be applied to diagnostics. They were able to use these complexes to accurately detect the presence of HPV in patient samples. 

Martin says that the team at Mammoth is exploring the use for CRISPR as the search engine for biology. The CRISPR-Cas complexes are fitted with a guide-RNA, which tells them what specific sequence to look for in the DNA or RNA sample. Martin compares this to using the 'Ctrl+F' function in computers to find and pinpoint keywords or phrases on a webpage. 

Martin said that these guide-RNAs can be programmed to find disease-specific RNA or DNA sequences. Then the proteins will bind to all of the matching sequences in the sample and cut them out. Once they make a cut, a reporter molecule attached to the CRISPR-Cas molecule will emit a color. The color change can be read out from fluorescence or color-metrics, and the presence of color will indicate that the sample tested positive for a disease. 

dna sequencing

And all of this happens without the presence of heavy duty machinery typically used in diagnostics, like a PCR machine. Plus, the technique is sample agnostic, according to Martin, so it can be used to test blood, urine or saliva. 

Since the CRISPR-Cas protein complexes are stable, they can be easily handled and transported, making them accessible to a wide range of patients. They can even come on a piece of paper, and all that's left to do is add a drop of blood onto the paper, and get the results read through a phone camera. 

"There's huge implications here for global health and the public, because there's lots of barriers to access these molecular techniques," said Martin. By eliminating the need for clunky and expensive PCR machines and UV readers, Mammoth aims to democratize diagnostics for use outside of medical-grade labs.

Mammoth's platform is still in development. This funding will allow the team to develop infrastructure for the CRISPR platform and carry out specific disease detection tests for not only healthcare applications, but across agriculture, forensic, and oil industries. It will also support the product through clinical testing. 

Team at Mammoth biosciences

Mammoth also welcomes infectious disease expert Charles Chui and protein engineering expert Dave Savage to its growing Scientific Advisory Board, chaired by Jennifer Doudna. 

One area that Mammoth is looking into is disease biomarkers, and companies that research them or make them. "We're very excited to actually work with partners that have this technology to benefit the developing world, not only for existing diseases, but also emerging diseases," said Martin. 

SEE ALSO: Meet the 29-year-old who founded a company that's using technology to find treatments for diseases thought to be incurable

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why cities can't get rid of rats

Viewing all 463 articles
Browse latest View live