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

The biggest biotech discovery of the century will make designer babies and genetically edited humans possible

$
0
0

ultrasound baby sonogram

Designer babies, genetically engineered to be super-smart, disease free, and physically fit, are the stuff of science fiction. But science fiction often predicts reality.

The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something science is far closer to achieving than many may think.

A fascinating new deep dive from MIT Technology Review explains just how close this technology is and why at this point, even though there are still scientific hurdles that need to be cleared, it's almost more a question of ethics than science: what kind of genetic edits to a person are acceptable, especially before they are even born?

The simple and marginally more accepted use of this technology would be to make sure that no one is born with a genetic condition like Huntington's disease, which causes an incurable breakdown of the brain. The scarier and seemingly sci-fi scenario is that genetic editing could allow an elite group to create children who are naturally smarter, stronger, and healthier than everyone else in society.

Jennifer Doudna, a Berkeley biologist who co-discovered the key technology that will theoretically make genetic engineered children possible, is so concerned about what this technology could do that in January she held a meeting to try to get American scientists to pause research before it's irreversible. But with studies being carried out all over the globe and rumors of experiments editing human embryos already said to be under review for publication in China, the fact that this will happen seems inevitable.

"Most of the public," Doudna told MIT Tech Review's Antonio Regalado, "does not appreciate what is coming."

Where the science is now

CRISP Monkeys genetically modified

The key to gene editing that Doudna helped discover three years ago is CRISPR-Cas9, a technology from the natural world that she and Emmanuelle Charpentier harnessed and that is now already in wide use. Regalado describes CRISPR as a tool that allows biologists to basically "search-and-replace" components of DNA, meaning they can rewrite specific segments of something's genetic code.

Don't want the code that's related to a particular disease? This will allow us to rewrite it.

That can't be done with perfect accuracy yet: CRISPR currently successfully deletes target code 40% of the time and switches it out correctly about 20% of the time. It can make other unwanted changes too, meaning that now, it's largely unreliable and inconsistent. But researchers expect these rates to improve.

Despite these imperfections, CRISPR has already been used in livestock like cows and pigs and even in monkeys, which showed last year for the first time that targeted genetic editing could be done successfully in primates. Livestock have been engineered to be healthier, while in the monkeys, researchers modified genes that regulate metabolism, immune cell development, and stem cells.

The video below explains how CRISPR works:

Researchers are developing ways to use CRISPR to treat genetic conditions like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and are also experimenting with genetic changes that could eliminate viruses like HIV. Even though viruses aren't genetic diseases, certain gene edits have been shown to prevent the virus from spreading to new cells and to "destroy inactive HIV residing in the human genome by altering critical viral genes," according to a look at genome surgery in MIT Tech Review. Experts even think these types of changes could eventually help treat complex conditions with genetic components like schizophrenia and autism, according to MIT Tech Review— though we still need to understand those conditions better.

Still, editing adult genes to cure conditions or even hacking the adult genome to make stronger, smarter humans (something George Church, a leading researcher in the field at Harvard, thinks will eventually be possible) doesn't change the genes that'll be passed on to any children that person has. As Regalado explains, these adult changes might replace the faulty genes in adult blood or bone cells, but that wouldn't affect the sperm and egg cells, which are what pass DNA on to the next generation.

In order to pass those fixed or augmented cells on, you'd have to edit a human embryo or the sperm and egg (or the adult cells that produce sperm and eggs, as another MIT Tech Review story points out) used to create the embryo — something called "germ line editing."

Designer babies

dna double helix genetics

Editing an embryo wouldn't just remove a health problem — or, in the dystopian future model, create an augmented human. It would leave lasting changes that are passed on, something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.

"It makes you ask if humans should be exercising that kind of power," Doudna told Regalado, of MIT Technology Review. "If germ line editing is conducted in humans, that is changing human evolution."

Of course, some would say that that's the point, that humanity needs to be improved and that we should hasten the process. Regalado quotes bioethicist John Harris, who says "the human genome is not perfect," and "it's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."

Most researchers told Regalado that they wouldn't do embryo enhancements other than the ones that would remove disease, at least not at this point — but he also says that many stopped answering his questions after he'd asked about the existing research in that area.

So how close are we?

Some skeptical researchers told Regalado that even though "we know it's possible," it's still far too error prone to be considered practical to use in editing human embryos for now.

However, progress is being made. Researchers told Regalado that using CRISPR right now, they probably have to edit 20 embryos to make a monkey in the way that they want. Guoping Feng, a researcher at MIT's McGovern Institute (who made the video explaining CRISPR above), thinks that making a genetically edited human — either without disease or augmented — will be possible in 10 to 20 years.

Other researchers said the key would be editing the DNA of stem cells using CRISPR, then growing and replicating those cell into human egg or sperm cells — something that isn't possible yet, but scientists "think they will soon be able" to do, according to MIT Tech Review. Those new sperm and egg cells could be joined to create an embryo. In that case, researchers could make sure the embryo they'd created had the specific changes they wanted and no unwanted other substitutions before creating an embryo.

Even though the technology required to turn stem cells into those egg and sperm cells is still being developed, stem cell expert Jonathan Tilly at Northeastern told Regalado that his lab is already trying to edit egg cells with CRISPR. Once CRISPR can be used more stably and once the stem cell puzzle is solved — no small thing — that'll be the key, Tilly suggested, to actually growing an animal from a stem cell.

Tilly said that once this is done with animals, it'll prove that it can be done, but at that point you'd want to think long and hard before doing such a thing with humans.

"'Can you do it?' is one thing," he said, but then you ask "'Would you do it? Why would you want to do it? What is the purpose?' As scientists we want to know if it's feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it's not a science question, it's a society question."

Read Regalado's full, fascinating report at MIT Technology Review— and pay attention to the sorts of questions that make scientists cut off communication.

SEE ALSO: The biggest biotech discovery of the century is about to change medicine forever

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do


Geneticists: Editing human embryos is a terrible idea

$
0
0

cas9 dna rna editing

It's no secret that scientists can now edit genes.

Resolving disease-causing mutations could help cure some of the world's most deadly diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and hemophilia.

In the past, these modifications have been limited to genes in non-reproductive cells. But a number of researchers around the globe are poised to conduct the same editing in human embryos, which have genes that affect the entire rest of the organism.

According to a coalition of American geneticists, that's a terrible idea.

Editing human embryos is problematic because it could have long-term, unintended effects, the geneticists wrote in a commentary published last week in Nature.

Researchers use nuclease, an enzyme that snips DNA into smaller pieces, to make changes in a cell's genetic makeup, but its use is still not down to a perfect science—it works differently depending on its concentration and the type of cell. With so much left up to chance, these enzymes could work on parts of the genome other than those targeted, which could have major unintended consequences on the embryo that don't become obvious until many years after a baby is born. These genetic modifications are done without the embryo's consent, and can be passed down to future generations.

A number of countries (mostly in Western Europe) have bans on editing the genome of human embryos, but not all do. For parents looking to modify the genes of their future child, one is not quite sure what "consent" would look like. These are conversations that need to be had among researchers, ethicists, and the public before this type of work becomes widespread, the researchers write. Until these standards are set, they hope that those working with human embryos around the world will take a break from their work, at least for now.

This article originally appeared on Popular Science

This article was written by Alexandra Ossola from Popular Science and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

SEE ALSO: The biggest biotech discovery of the century will make designer babies and genetically edited humans possible

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists are dumbfounded by a mysterious cloud on Mars

People can now open-source their very own DNA for science

$
0
0

mouth swab dna saliva test

People eager to share personal information beyond what's on their Facebook profile have another outlet: an online platform launching on March 24 will let them give scientists information about their genomes, gut bacteria and other biological data.

The "Open Humans Network" aims to make more health-related data available for scientists to mine for discoveries and also help volunteers make that data more accessible to more researchers.

Rather than volunteering for only a single study, participants would let any legitimate researcher use their data, even though that poses potential threats to privacy.

"It's like open-sourcing your body," said project director Jason Bobe.

Open Humans is launching when scientists are increasingly concerned that valuable genetic and other data are being kept under wraps. Academic researchers do not want to give competitors access for fear they will be scooped on new discoveries, and gene-testing companies keep data private so they can profit from it, said geneticist George Church of Harvard University.

"Data hoarders range from two-person labs to large companies," he said.

Open Humans seeks to counter that.

At www.openhumans.org, people can sign up for one or more of (so far) three ongoing studies.

American Gut investigates links between gut bacteria and disease. GoViral identifies what viruses are circulating in different areas of the United States during flu season. The Personal Genome Project, led by Harvard's Church, has collected full genome sequences on about 500 of its 4,100 volunteers in an effort to study associations between DNA variants and health.

By joining a study, people agree that their data can be shared with researchers on other projects, with their names attached so scientists can contact them for follow-up, something not possible with "de-identified" biological data.

"You become a richer resource if your data are shared among as many scientists as possible," Bobe said. "Maybe someone will find an association between your gut microbiome and your susceptibility to the flu. Any participating researcher will be able to log in and look through the genomic and other data" of Open Humans volunteers.

Participants will have to pass a test demonstrating they understand the potential risks of sharing their genetic profile and health history, including that it might be hacked, something that could expose them to discrimination in life insurance or long-term care coverage.

Open Humans is backed by $500,000 grants from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

 

(Editing by David Gregorio)

SEE ALSO: 10 ways the biotech discovery of the century is poised to change our bodies and minds

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The remarkable story behind the first man without a beating heart

Why Iceland could hold the secrets to the future of medicine

$
0
0

Iceland

In a tiny country of just 320,000 people, scientists have begun to discover precisely how our DNA makes us who we are — and how it might turn on us.

This week, researchers used the complete genomes of 2,636 Icelanders, coupled with a trove of historical data and medical records, to create the most complete genetic map of a nation we've ever seen. (A genome is the complete set of a person's genetic material.)

They also spotted several life-changing tweaks in those genes that apply to us all, including one that doubles the risk of developing Alzheimer's and another that causes a disease that leads to heart palpitations.

Iceland is the perfect living laboratory for this kind of research.

Since Scandinavians first settled here more than 1,000 years ago, locals have kept detailed records on family relationships. Most people living in the country today can trace back their family history to one of those original northern settlers. Plus, so few people have immigrated to the country since then that the population has stayed pretty homogeneous — at least as far as genetic diversity goes.

Because the country has so little genetic variation, it means it's much easier to zero in on what's notable and pick out the specific gene variants that cause disease.

Icelandic neurologist Kari Stefansson had this in mind when he founded a company called deCODE in the mid-90s with the idea of mapping the the genetic information of everyone in the country.

Since then, more than a third of all Icelanders have given the company a cheek swab with a sample of their DNA— just enough to run a basic genetic test but not complex enough to see all the changes that can contribute to disease.

This new research, also done by researchers at his company, helps fill in some of the gaps left by these basic tests.

Photos That Will Make You Want To Travel To Iceland

Starting with the 2,636 complete genomes (from people who chose to participate in the most recent study), they combined that information with the DNA samples from more than a third of the country's residents. Finally, they added that to the country's trove of 1,000-year-old genealogical records.

Then they picked out the stretches of genes people most commonly shared with close relatives and used those to make educated guesses about how the rest of the population's genes would look.

Et voila! They came up with rough sketches of the genetic makeup of 101,584 more Icelanders— including people whose DNA had been sampled previously but who didn't take part in the study.

In addition to their Icelandic gene map, the scientists pinpointed a couple of very important gene tweaks, or mutations, that can influence how likely we are to develop certain diseases.

For example, the researchers found a specific genetic mutation in a gene called ABCA7 (rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?) that doubles a person's chances of developing Alzheimer's.

While past studies have suggested this gene could raise the risk of getting the disease, this study was the first to confirm it by picking out the precise mutation that occurs. We still can't tell exactly how the particular genetic tweak goes on to cause Alzheimer’s, but just spotting it is pretty groundbreaking, Stefansson said on a call with reporters.

The researchers also identified a specific gene mutation that causes atrial fibrillation, a kind of irregular heartbeat. (Of the 8 study participants who had the genetic tweak, all of them also had the condition.) In addition, the scientists either spotted or confirmed several changes that raise the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and gallstones.

All of the changes above affect how genes function. A tiny mutation here might prevent the production of a particular protein; another tweak there might cause that same protein to come out oddly-shaped.

But what about changes that stop genes from functioning altogether?

Scientists call these mutations knockouts — and for good reason. Genes that have been knocked out can't do their jobs at all, sometimes dramatically raising our risk of certain illnesses or diseases, like cystic fibrosis. Of the Icelanders they studied, nearly 8% had a knockout.

For decades, researchers have studied how genes work in mice by inactivating, or knocking out, specific chunks of their DNA and then seeing what happens to them in the lab. We can't ethically create knockouts in people (obviously), but we can find the ones that already exist. Then, we can pinpoint the roots of more genetic diseases and potentially create new treatments.

All of this represents a vastly different way of studying genes and disease than what scientists have been using for the past few decades.

Instead of taking a group of patients who have a certain disease, such as cystic fibrosis, and then looking through their genes for commonalities that may (or may not) affect the disease, the researchers first found the individuals with genetic tweaks, and then looked to see what diseases or illnesses they had.

"This approach completely turns the tables," said Stefansson, and could be the shape of things to come.

SEE ALSO: The Google exec who says we're close to 'curing cancer' is seriously misinformed

READ NEXT: This man is the world's richest doctor — and his company could change medicine

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Icelandic Commission Confirms That Video Of Mythical Sea Monster Lagarfljótsormur Is Actually Real

The cold, hard truth about the quest to revive the Mammoth

$
0
0

woolly mammoth

Everyone has heard of de-extinction. Everyone.

If they haven't, and are brave enough to ask casually in conversation, and if the person responding doesn't want to take the time to actually explain it—or doesn't actually know—then the response will consist of exactly four words: It's basically Jurassic Park.

As a result, the story is everywhere. While some of my no less-obscure Google Alerts lie dormant for weeks before cropping up with new material from some weird corner of the internet, de-extinction merits a several-times-weekly type discussion.

Everyone—from Think Christian to the Martha's Vineyard Gazette—is interested in the fact that this could really be happening. Jurassic Park could really be happening.

But is it? Yes and no. What has been framed within the Biblical rhetoric of revival and resurrection is really occurring using the now commonplace approaches of genetic engineering, amped up to a level that—while undoubtedly impressive—raises many more questions about what we can and should do with a technology that's already steeped in ambivalence.

"This is not about making the perfect wooly mammoth—it's about making cold-resistant elephants," said Harvard geneticist George Church at a conference in October. Church's lab is currently working to revive a wooly mammoth-like elephant in hopes of restoring the grasslands of the Arctic tundra.

Or, as he told New York Times Magazine in response to criticism regarding the project's hype from fellow researchers, "I would like to have an elephant that likes the cold weather. Whether you call it a 'mammoth' or not, I don't care." (The NYT Mag article in question ran with the headline "The Mammoth Cometh.")

Techno-scientifically, engineering an elephant that is fat, hairy, and has cold-adapted hemoglobin would be an impressive feat requiring "a few dozen" changes to the animal's genome. But resurrection, this is not.

Wooly_MammothsSo why is it called de-extinction in the first place? The story goes back to Stewart Brand, a man who has done more to define our day-to-day experience in the digital age than most people who actively played a part in creating it. To put it simply, the 75-year old Brand loves playing with big ideas, and the idea of bringing back extinct species is nothing if not huge.

In February of 2013, Brand gave an eighteen-minute TED Talk entitled, "The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?" In the talk, which has since been viewed over 1.6 million times and has been translated into 24 languages, Brand told a tale in broad strokes of the wildlife-destroying Anthropocene, as evidenced by the extinction of the once ubiquitous passenger pigeon.

"Sorrow, anger, mourning. Don't mourn—organize," Brand told an audience of people who had each paid several thousand dollars to attend the popular talk forum devoted to spreading the "power of ideas."

"What if you could find out that, using the DNA in museum specimens, fossils maybe up to 200,000 years old could be used to bring species back?" Brand asked. Thanks to new developments in genome assembly, synthetic biology, and interspecies cloning, Brand said, bringing extinct species back into existence was now a distinct possibility.

This moment effectively served as the launching pad for Brand's newest venture, an organization called Revive & Restore that would be devoted to resurrecting extinct species using biotechnology. The project would be just one arm of Brand's Long Now Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to getting "people thinking past the mental barrier of an ever-shortening future."

Perhaps most well known for its 300-foot-tall stainless steel 10,000 Year Clock—financed by a $42 million investment from Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos and built inside a mountain that Bezos owns in Texas—Long Now's most recent project was sending a nickel disk inscribed with 1,500 languages to "Rosetta's Comet" via the Rosetta space probe.

While these projects are at turns overly glorified or dismissed as New Age oddities, they are foremost large-scale art projects. Viewed in this way, the de-extinction project is the perfect addition to Brand's portfolio.

Lyuba woolly mammothWhile Revive & Restore's flagship project is to clone the passenger pigeon back into existence, it is also aiming to resurrect the wooly mammoth in collaboration with Church's lab at Harvard. In addition, it plans to serve as a de-extinction hub of sorts, convening meetings and fostering communication across disciplinary boundaries among the scientists, conservationists, and ethicists working on relevant aspects of the project worldwide.

However, the project also has another, bigger goal: Brand wants to persuade the environmentalist and conservationist communities, which he repeatedly argues are stuck in a negative view of the world, to instead embrace the optimism of technology.

"The environmental and conservation movements have mired themselves in a tragic view of life," Brand wrote in a letter to Church and biologist E.O. Wilson before launching the project. "The return of the passenger pigeon could shake them out of it—and invite them to embrace prudent biotechnology as a Green tool instead of menace in this century."

"Could be fun. Could improve things. It could, as they say, advance the story," he wrote.

A year later, however, the story has mostly raised lots of questions from disparate stakeholders staring at each other across a vast expanse of muddled misunderstanding.

How arbitrary or specific are species boundaries in the first place?

In an era when endangered species are being cloned in zoos, where are conservation's limits?

What role have/do/should humans play in reinventing nature?

These questions are the beauty of a project whose grandiose packaging far outweighs its realities: Revive & Restore currently has only one full-time employee, a passenger pigeon-enthusiast with a bachelors degree in ecology but no advanced scientific qualifications. He has admitted it could be up to two decades before anything closely resembling a flock of passenger pigeons takes to the skies. Yet it's advancing a story.

In one of the few bioethical analyses of de-extinction written to date, author Ronald Sandler concluded by saying that, "The considerations in favor of de-extinction are largely techno-science oriented, not conservation-oriented." Given that there is no pressing need to pursue it, from Sandler's ethical perspective, "De-extinction is a luxury."

It may partially be an exercise in seeing what we can do with the latest genome editing technologies, whether we can make a creature as large an elephant give birth to something slightly different, whether we can then teach those animals to live and breed together, whether they can then manage to do so in the Arctic, and whether then some of the damage wrought as a result of climate change might somehow be erased via the pounding feet of herds of fat, hairy elephants.

If so, it's a bad scientific solution; but in the meantime, it's a great story.

SEE ALSO: Researchers Discover A Mammoth Carcass Full Of Blood

SEE ALSO: Researchers Found Something Amazing When They Autopsied A 40,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists are dumbfounded by a mysterious cloud on Mars

This company just revolutionized our understanding of disease by doing its research backwards

$
0
0

genetics genes dna

This week, a team of scientists used the genetic data on thousands of Icelanders to find out where some of our most troubling diseases come from.

They discovered that a condition called early-onset atrial fibrillation, a kind of irregular heartbeat, was closely linked to a single tweak in a particular gene called HYL4. All eight people in the study who had the mutation had the disease.

Alzheimer's, on the other hand, is about twice as likely to develop in people with a change in another gene called ABCA7. (We still can't tell exactly how the particular genetic tweak goes on to cause Alzheimer’s, but just spotting it is pretty groundbreaking.)

To figure all this out, the researchers used a method that's basically the reverse of the way scientists have approached genetic data for decades.

And it could be the shape of things to come.

Genes to illness, rather than illness to genes

Traditionally, scientists take a group of patients who have a certain disease — like cystic fibrosis, for example — and then comb through their genetic data for commonalities that may (or may not) affect the disease. This time, the researchers looked at all their volunteers' genetic data, picked out the ones with strange tweaks (or "mutations"), and then looked to see whether these people had any illness or disease.

"This approach completely turns the tables," Icelandic neurologist Kari Stefansson, who founded deCODE, the company in charge of the research, said on a call with reporters.

In addition to helping them pinpoint a cause of atrial fibrillation and reveal a risk factor for Alzheimer's, the scientists' method helped them spot or confirm several other genetic changes that raise the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and gallstones.

Knocked-out genes

They also got a closer look at another type of mutation that shuts down a gene completely.

For decades, scientists have been deliberately shutting off genes in mice to better understand which ones do what and why. They call these turned-off genes "knockouts."

Knockouts occur naturally too, of course, and not just in mice. In the Icelandic population in the new study, nearly 8% of people had a knockout.

So, rather than creating knockouts in lab animals and then studying what happens to them in the lab, the new research aims to spot the ones that are already present in people, and then see how these knockouts affect them.

Once the researchers start to learn more about the function of each of our genes, they can help pinpoint the roots of more genetic diseases — potentially paving the way for better drugs and treatments.

SEE ALSO: Why Iceland could hold the secrets to the future of medicine

READ NEXT: This man is the world's richest doctor — and his company could change medicine

Join the conversation about this story »

FBI confirms death of 'most wanted terrorist' with DNA from severed finger

$
0
0

Zulkifli bin HirThe U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Wednesday it has confirmed that Zulkifli bin Hir, one of its "most wanted terrorists," was killed in a raid in the Philippines in January.

A person familiar with the investigation said the FBI was able to confirm bin Hir's death in part through DNA analysis of a severed finger that Philippine authorities collected from the gruesome scene of a raid that left bin Hir dead.

The finger was transported to the United States where FBI agents compared its DNA to one of bin Hir's siblings and found a link.

Only a finger, and not a full body, was recovered from the scene because of the chaotic aftermath of the raid in which 44 Philippine police commandos were killed when they clashed with Muslim rebels. The raid ended a three-year ceasefire.

The U.S. State Department had offered $5 million for the arrest of bin Hir, a Malaysian member of the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiah militant group behind numerous bombing attacks in the Philippines.

Three years ago, the Philippine military reported bin Hir died in an air strike, but he surfaced again last year in Mindanao under protection of a Moro Islamic Liberation Front splinter group.

In a statement, David Bowdich, assistant director in charge at the FBI Los Angeles Field office said the agency has now taken bin Hir off its Most Wanted Terrorist list and thanked the Philippine police.

"Once again, the men and women of the FBI express sincere condolences to the brave officers of the Special Action Force who lost their lives while attempting to apprehend this dangerous fugitive," Bowdich said. 

(Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Eric Beech and David Gregorio) 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

Should you trust companies with your DNA?

$
0
0

DNA

In January, the biotech company Genentech reportedly committed $10 million for access to the DNA of 3,000 Parkinson's patients and their families. A week later, Pfizer made a similar deal for the genomes of 5,000 people with lupus.

At least 11 more similar transactions are on the way--deals in which the private genomics company 23andMe stands to profit by commodifying its customers' biological identities.

Off the bat, that sounds pretty creepy: offering up genetic information to the highest bidder. It's sort of like what Google does with your whereabouts and searches.

The thing is, selling or volunteering personal information may just transform medicine.

A trove of data could give scientists the tools they need to develop gene-specific drug therapies for certain diseases. "We are hoping to ultimately develop Parkinson's medicines, for example, that actually modify the disease as opposed to just treating symptoms," Genentech's Nadine Pinell says. Analyzing patterns in DNA could also help scientists find the genetic markers that trigger diseases, making preventive care more individualized and effective.

Even the White House is getting on board. In February, President Obama announced the $215-million Precision Medicine Initiative, which aims to compile genetic information from one million volunteers. "Ultimately," Obama said, "this has the possibility of not only helping us find new cures, but it also helps us create a genuine health care system as opposed to just a disease care system."

141: The economic return in USD on every dollar the federal government invested in the 17-year Human Genome Project

As with any modern data business, privacy is a concern. Even a small segment of DNA (23andMe looks at 750,000 base pairs out of 3 billion) can reveal a history of illness or predict future risks and be used, Maury–style, to identify baby daddies. But Dave Kaufman, program director at the National Human Genome Research Institute's Division of Genomics and Society, says those worries are far-fetched. Research materials remain anonymous and closely guarded--although data breaches, like the one in February suffered by health insurer Anthem, punch a hole in consumer confidence. Legislation offers some protection, too: The 2009 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act makes it illegal for employers or health insurance companies to discriminate based on genetic data. The Act doesn't address who controls data once it's out there, but more policy is sure to arrive soon. And the White House initiative will certainly have plenty of security experts on the payroll.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to embrace DNA-sharing is that people don't seem all that distressed about giving up their data. Eighty percent of 23andMe's users have already opted to make their genomes available for studies. Whether they understand the fine print on what they're signing away is up for debate. But most people, especially those with genetic disorders in their families, probably know they have more to gain from potential discoveries than they have to lose from unlocking their biological identities.

This article was originally published in the April 2015 issue of Popular Science, under the title "Should You Trust Big Pharma With Your DNA?"

This article originally appeared on Popular Science

 

SEE ALSO: 10 ways the biotech discovery of the century is poised to change our bodies and minds

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists have discovered the subtle difference between how dogs and cats drink water


Allergies affect millions and can kill — but we know shockingly little about them

$
0
0

Man Sneezing

For me, it was hornets.

One summer afternoon when I was 12, I ran into an overgrown field near a friend’s house and kicked a hornet nest the size of a football.

An angry squadron of insects clamped onto my leg; their stings felt like scorching needles. I swatted the hornets away and ran for help, but within minutes I realised something else was happening.

A constellation of pink stars had appeared around the stings. The hives swelled, and new ones began appearing farther up my legs. I was having an allergic reaction.

My friend’s mother gave me antihistamines and loaded me into her van. We set out for the county hospital, my dread growing as we drove. I was vaguely aware of the horrible things that can happen when allergies run amok. I imagined the hives reaching my throat and sealing it shut.

I lived to tell the tale: my hives subsided at the hospital, leaving behind a lingering fear of hornets. But an allergy test confirmed that I was sensitive to the insects. Not to honey bees or wasps or yellow jackets. Just the particular type of hornet that had stung me. The emergency room doctor said I might not be so fortunate the next time I encountered a nest of them. She handed me an EpiPen and told me to ram the syringe into my thigh if I was stung again. The epinephrine would raise my blood pressure, open my airway – and perhaps save my life. I’ve been lucky: that afternoon was 35 years ago, and I haven’t encountered a hornet’s nest since. I lost track of that EpiPen years ago.

Anyone with an allergy has their origin story, a tale of how they discovered that their immune system goes haywire when some arbitrarily particular molecule gets into their body. There are hundreds of millions of these stories. In the USA alone, an estimated 18 million people suffer from hay fever, and food allergies affect millions of American children. The prevalence of allergies in many other countries is rising. The list of allergens includes – but is not limited to – latex, gold, pollen (ragweed, cockleweed and pigweed are especially bad), penicillin, insect venom, peanuts, papayas, jellyfish stings, perfume, eggs, the faeces of house mites, pecans, salmon, beef and nickel.

Spring Allergy Pollen FlowersOnce these substances trigger an allergy, the symptoms can run the gamut from annoying to deadly. Hives appear, lips swell. Hay fever brings sniffles and stinging eyes; allergies to food can cause vomiting and diarrhoea. For an unlucky minority, allergies can trigger a potentially fatal whole-body reaction known as anaphylactic shock.

The collective burden of these woes is tremendous, yet the treatment options are limited. EpiPens save lives, but the available long-term treatments offer mixed results to those exhausted by an allergy to mould or the annual release of pollen. Antihistamines can often reduce sufferers’ symptoms, but these drugs also cause drowsiness, as do some other treatments.

We might have more effective treatments if scientists understood allergies, but a maddening web of causes underlies allergic reactions. Cells are aroused, chemicals released, signals relayed. Scientists have only partially mapped the process. And there’s an even bigger mystery underlying this biochemical web: why do we even get allergies at all?

“That is exactly the problem I love,” Ruslan Medzhitov told me recently. “It’s very big, it’s very fundamental, and completely unknown.”

Medzhitov and I were wandering through his laboratory, which is located on the top floor of the Anlyan Center for Medical Research and Education at the Yale School of Medicine. His team of postdocs and graduate students were wedged tight among man-sized tanks of oxygen and incubators full of immune cells. “It’s a mess, but a productive mess,” he said with a shrug. Medzhitov has a boxer’s face – massive, circular, with a broad, flat nose – but he spoke with a soft elegance.

Medzhitov’s mess has been exceptionally productive. Over the past 20 years, he has made fundamental discoveries about the immune system, for which he has been awarded a string of major prizes. Last year he was the first recipient of the €4 million Else Kröner Fresenius Award. And though Medzhitov hasn’t won a Nobel, many of his peers think he should have: in 2011, 26 leading immunologists wrote to Nature protesting that Medzhitov’s research had been overlooked for the prize.

Now Medzhitov is turning his attention to a question that could change immunology yet again: why do we get allergies? No one has a firm answer, but what is arguably the leading theory suggests that allergies are a misfiring of a defence against parasitic worms. In the industrialised world, where such infections are rare, this system reacts in an exaggerated fashion to harmless targets, making us miserable in the process.

beesMedzhitov thinks that’s wrong. Allergies are not simply a biological blunder. Instead, they’re an essential defence against noxious chemicals – a defence that has served our ancestors for tens of millions of years and continues to do so today.

It’s a controversial theory, Medzhitov acknowledges. But he’s also confident that history will prove him right. “I think the field will go around in that stage where there’s a lot of resistance to the idea,” he told me. “Until everybody says, ‘Oh yeah, it’s obvious. Of course it works that way.’”

The physicians of the ancient world knew about allergies. Three thousand years ago, Chinese doctors described a “plant fever” that caused runny noses in autumn. There is evidence that the Egyptian pharaoh Menes died from the sting of a wasp in 2641 BCE. Two and a half millennia later, the Roman philosopher Lucretius wrote, “What is food to one is to others bitter poison.”

But it was a little more than a century ago when scientists realised that these diverse symptoms are different heads on the same hydra. By then researchers had discovered that many diseases are caused by bacteria and other pathogens, and that we fight these invaders with an immune system – an army of cells that can unleash deadly chemicals and precisely targeted antibodies. They soon realised that the immune system can also cause harm. In the early 1900s, the French scientists Charles Richet and Paul Portier were studying how toxins affect the body. They injected small doses of poison from sea anemones into dogs, then waited a week or so before delivering an even smaller dose. Within minutes, the dogs went into shock and died. Instead of protecting the animals from harm, the immune system appeared to make them more susceptible.

Other researchers observed that some medical drugs caused hives and other symptoms. And this sensitivity increased with exposure – the opposite of the protection that antibodies provided against infectious diseases. The Austrian doctor Clemens von Pirquet wondered how it was that substances entering the body could change the way the body reacted. To describe this response, he coined the word ‘allergy’, from the Greek words allos(‘other’) and ergon (‘work’).

In the decades that followed, scientists discovered that the molecular stages of these reactions were remarkably similar. The process begins when an allergen lands on one of the body’s surfaces – skin, eye, nasal passage, mouth, airway or gut. These surfaces are loaded with immune cells that act as border sentries. When a sentry encounters an allergen, it first engulfs and demolishes the invader, then decorates its outer surface with fragments of the substance. Next the cell locates some lymph tissue. There it passes on the fragments to other immune cells, which produce a distinctive fork-shaped antibody, known as immunoglobulin E, or IgE.

These antibodies will trigger a response if they encounter the allergen again. The reaction begins when an antibody activates a component of the immune system known as a mast cell, which then blasts out a barrage of chemicals. Some of these chemicals latch onto nerves, triggering itchiness and coughing. Sometimes mucus is produced. Airway muscles can contract, making it hard to breathe.

allergiesThis picture, built up in labs over the past century, answered the ‘how?’ part of the allergies mystery. Left unanswered, however, was ‘why?’ And that’s surprising, because the question had a pretty clear answer for most parts of the immune system. Our ancestors faced a constant assault of pathogens. Natural selection favoured mutations that helped them fend off these attacks, and those mutations accumulated to produce the sophisticated defences we have today.

It was harder to see how natural selection could have produced allergies. Reacting to harmless things with a huge immune response probably wouldn’t have aided the survival of our ancestors. Allergies are also strangely selective. Only some people have allergies, and only some substances are allergens. Sometimes people develop allergies relatively late in life; sometimes childhood allergies disappear. And for decades, nobody could even figure out what IgE was for. It showed no ability to stop any virus or bacteria. It was as if we evolved one special kind of antibody just to make us miserable.

One early clue came in 1964. A parasitologist named Bridget Ogilvie was investigating how the immune system repelled parasitic worms, and she noticed that rats infected with worms produced large amounts of what would later be called IgE. Subsequent studies revealed that the antibodies signalled the immune system to unleash a damaging assault on the worms.

Parasitic worms represent a serious threat – not just to rats, but to humans too. Hookworms can drain off blood from the gut. Liver flukes can damage liver tissue and cause cancer. Tapeworms can cause cysts in the brain. More than 20 percent of all people on Earth carry such an infection, most of them in low-income countries. Before modern public health and food safety systems, our ancestors faced a lifelong struggle against these worms, as well as ticks and other parasitic animals.

During the 1980s, several scientists argued forcefully for a link between these parasites and allergies. Perhaps our ancestors evolved an ability to recognise the proteins on the surface of worms and to respond with IgE antibodies. The antibodies primed immune system cells in the skin and gut to quickly repel any parasite trying to push its way in. “You’ve got about an hour to react very dramatically in order to reduce the chance of these parasites surviving,” said David Dunne, a parasitologist at the University of Cambridge.

According to the worm theory, the proteins of parasitic worms are similar in shape to other molecules we regularly encounter in our lives. If we encounter those molecules, we mount a pointless defence. “Allergy is just an unfortunate side-effect of defence against parasitic worms,” says Dunne.

When he was an immunologist in training, Medzhitov was taught the worm theory of allergies. But ten years ago he started to develop doubts. “I was seeing that it doesn’t make sense,” he said. So Medzhitov began thinking about a theory of his own.

Thinking is a big part of Medzhitov’s science. It’s a legacy of his training in the Soviet Union in the 1980s and 1990s, when universities had little equipment and even less interest in producing good scientists. For his undergraduate degree, Medzhitov went to Tashkent State University in Uzbekistan. Every autumn the professors sent the students out into the cotton fields to help take in the harvest. They worked daily from dawn to dusk. “It was terrible,” said Medzhitov. “If you don’t do that, you get expelled from college.” He recalls sneaking biochemistry textbooks into the fields – and being reprimanded by a department chair for doing so.

Graduate school wasn’t much better. Medzhitov arrived at Moscow State University just as the Soviet regime collapsed. The university was broke, and Medzhitov didn’t have the equipment he needed to run experiments. “I was basically spending all of my time reading and thinking,” Medzhitov told me.

cells of the immune systemMostly, he thought about how our bodies perceive the outside world. We can recognise patterns of photons with our eyes and patterns of air vibrations with our ears. To Medzhitov, the immune system was another pattern recognition system – one that detected molecular signatures instead of light or sound.

As Medzhitov searched for papers on this subject, he came across references to a 1989 essay written by Charles Janeway, an immunologist at Yale, titled ‘Approaching the Asymptote? Evolution and revolution in immunology’. Medzhitov was intrigued and used several months’ of his stipend to buy a reprint of the paper. It was worth the wait, because the paper exposed him to Janeway’s theories, and those theories would change his life.

At the time, Janeway was arguing that antibodies have a big drawback: it takes days for the immune system to develop an effective antibody against a new invader. He speculated that the immune system might have another line of defence that could offer faster protection. Perhaps the immune system could use a pattern-recognition system to detect bacteria and viruses quickly, allowing it to immediately launch a response.

Medzhitov had been thinking about the same thing, and he immediately emailed Janeway. Janeway responded, and they began an exchange that would ultimately bring Medzhitov to New Haven, Connecticut, in 1994, to become a postdoctoral researcher in Janeway’s lab. (Janeway died in 2003.)

“He turned out to speak very little English, and had almost no experience in a wet laboratory,” says Derek Sant’Angelo, who worked in the lab at the time. Sant’Angelo, now at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey, recalls coming across Medzhitov at the bench one night. In one hand, Medzhitov held a mechanical pipette. In the other hand, he held a tube of bacteria. Medzhitov needed to use the pipette to remove a few drops of bacteria from the tube and place them on a plate on the lab bench in front of him. “He was slowly looking back and forth from the pipette down to the plate to the bacteria,” says Sant’Angelo. “He knew in theory that the pipette was used to put the bacteria on the plate. But he simply had absolutely no idea how to do it.”

Medzhitov still marvels that Janeway agreed to work with him. “I think that the only reason that he took me in his lab is that nobody else wanted to touch this idea,” he recalled.

With help from Sant’Angelo and other members of the lab, Medzhitov learned very quickly. Soon he and Janeway discovered a new class of sensor on the surface of a certain kind of immune cell. Confronted with an invader, the sensors would clasp onto the intruder and trigger a chemical alarm that promoted other immune cells to search the area for pathogens to kill. It was a fast, accurate way to sense and remove bacterial invaders.

Medzhitov and Janeway’s discovery of the sensors, now known as toll-like receptors, revealed a new dimension to our immune defences, and has been hailed as a fundamental principle of immunology. It also helped solve a medical mystery.

t-cell immunity immune system immunotherapy Infections sometimes produce a catastrophic body-wide inflammation known as sepsis. It is thought to strike around a million people a year in the USA alone, up to half of whom die. For years, scientists thought that a bacterial toxin might cause the immune system to malfunction in this way – but sepsis is actually just an exaggeration of one of the usual immune defences against bacteria and other invaders.

Instead of acting locally, the immune system accidentally responds throughout the body. “What happens in septic shock is that these mechanisms become activated much more strongly than necessary,” said Medzhitov. “And that’s what kills.”

Medzhitov isn’t driven to do science to cure people; he’s more interested in basic questions about the immune system. But he argues that cures won’t be found if researchers have the wrong answers for basic questions. Only now that scientists have a clear understanding of the biology underlying sepsis can they develop treatments that target the real cause of the condition – the over-reaction of the toll-like receptors. (Tests are ongoing, and the results so far are promising). “Thirty years ago, it was, ‘Whatever causes septic shock is bad.’ Well, now we know it’s not,” said Medzhitov.

Medzhitov kept thinking after he and Janeway discovered toll-like receptors. If the immune system has special sensors for bacteria and other invaders, perhaps it had undiscovered sensors for other enemies. That’s when he started thinking about parasitic worms, IgE and allergies. And when he thought about them, things didn’t add up.

It’s true that the immune system makes IgE when it detects parasitic worms. But some studies suggest that IgE isn’t actually essential to fight these invaders. Scientists have engineered mice that can’t make IgE, for instance, and have found that the animals can still mount a defence against parasitic worms. And Medzhitov was sceptical of the idea that allergens mimic parasite proteins. A lot of allergens, such as nickel or penicillin, have no possible counterpart in the molecular biology of a parasite.

The more Medzhitov thought about allergens, the less important their structure seemed. Maybe what ties allergens together was not their shape, but what they do.

We know that allergens often cause physical damage. They rip open cells, irritate membranes, slice proteins into tatters. Maybe, Medzhitov thought, allergens do so much damage that we need a defence against them. “If you think of all the major symptoms of allergic reactions – runny noses, tears, sneezing, coughing, itching, vomiting and diarrhoea – all of these things have one thing in common,” said Medzhitov. “They all have to do with expulsion.” Suddenly the misery of allergies took on a new look. Allergies weren’t the body going haywire; they were the body’s strategy for getting rid of the allergens.

As Medzhitov explored this possibility, he found that the idea had surfaced from time to time over the years, only to be buried again. In 1991, for example, the evolutionary biologist Margie Profet argued that allergies fought toxins. Immunologists dismissed the idea, perhaps because Profet was an outsider. Medzhitov found it hugely helpful. “It was liberating,” he said.

Together with two of his students, Noah Palm and Rachel Rosenstein, Medzhitov published his theory in Nature in 2012. Then he began testing it. First he checked for a link between damage and allergies. He and colleagues injected mice with PLA2, an allergen that’s found in honey-bee venom and tears apart cell membranes. As Medzhitov had predicted, the animals’ immune systems didn’t respond to PLA2 itself. Only when PLA2 ripped open cells did the immune system produce IgE antibodies.

Another prediction of Medzhitov’s theory was that these antibodies would protect the mice, rather than just make them ill. To test this, Medzhitov and his colleagues followed their initial injection of PLA2 with a second, much bigger dose. If the animals had not previously been exposed to PLA2, the dose sent their body temperature plunging, sometimes fatally. But the mice that had been exposed marshalled an allergic reaction that, for reasons that aren’t yet clear, lessened the impact of the PLA2.

Medzhitov didn’t know it, but on the other side of the country another scientist was running an experiment that would provide even stronger support for his theory. Stephen Galli, chair of the Pathology Department at Stanford University School of Medicine, had spent years studying mast cells, the enigmatic immune cells that can kill people during allergic reactions. He suspected mast cells may actually help the body. In 2006, for example, Galli and colleagues found that mast cells destroy a toxin found in viper venom. That discovery led Galli to wonder, like Medzhitov, whether allergies might be protective.

To find out, Galli and colleagues injected one to two stings’ worth of honey-bee venom into mice, prompting an allergic reaction. Then they injected the same animals with a potentially lethal dose, to see if the reaction improved the animal’s chance of survival. It did. What’s more, when Galli’s team injected the IgE antibodies into mice that had never been exposed to the venom, those animals were also protected against a potentially lethal dose.

Medzhitov was delighted to discover Galli’s paper in the same issue of Immunity that carried his own. “It was good to see that somebody got the same results using a very different model. That’s always reassuring,” Medzhitov told me.

Still, the experiments left a lot unanswered. How precisely did the damage caused by the bee venom lead to an IgE response? And how did IgE protect the mice? These are the kinds of questions that Medzhitov’s team is now investigating. He showed me some of the experiments when I visited again last month. We sidled past a hulking new freezer blocking a corridor to slip into a room where Jaime Cullen, a researcher associate in the lab, spends much of her time. She put a flask of pink syrup under a microscope and invited me to look. I could see a flotilla of melon-shaped objects.

“These are the cells that cause all the problems,” said Medzhitov. I was looking at mast cells, the key agents of allergic reactions. Cullen is studying how IgE antibodies latch onto mast cells and prime them to become sensitive – or, in some cases, oversensitive – to allergens.

Medzhitov predicts that these experiments will show that allergen detection is like a home-alarm system. “You can detect a burglar, not by recognising his face, but by a broken window,” he said. The damage caused by an allergen rouses the immune system, which gathers up molecules in the vicinity and makes antibodies to them. Now the criminal has been identified and can be more easily apprehended next time he tries to break in.

Allergies make a lot more sense in terms of evolution when seen as a home-alarm system, argues Medzhitov. Toxic chemicals, whether from venomous animals or plants, have long threatened human health. Allergies would have protected our ancestors by flushing out these chemicals. And the discomfort our ancestors felt when exposed to these allergens might have led them to move to safer parts of their environment.

Like many adaptations, allergies weren’t perfect. They lowered the odds of dying from toxins but didn’t eliminate the risk. Sometimes the immune system overreacts dangerously, as Richet and Protier discovered when the second dose of anemone allergen killed the dogs they were experimenting on. And the immune system might sometimes round up a harmless molecular bystander when it responded to an allergy alarm. But overall, Medzhitov argues, the benefits of allergies outstripped their drawbacks.

That balance shifted with the rise of modern Western life, he adds. As we created more synthetic chemicals, we exposed ourselves to a wider range of compounds, each of which could potentially cause damage and trigger an allergic reaction. Our ancestors could avoid allergens by moving to the other side of the forest, but we can’t escape so easily. “In this particular case, the environment we’d have to avoid is living indoors,” said Medzhitov.

Scientists are taking this theory very seriously. “Ruslan is one of the most distinguished immunologists in the world,” said Galli. “If he thinks there’s validity to this idea, I think it gets a lot of traction.”

Dunne, on the other hand, is sceptical about the idea that Medzhitov’s theory explains all allergies. Medzhitov is underestimating the huge diversity of proteins that Dunne and others are finding on the surface of worms – proteins that could be mimicked by a huge range of allergens in the modern world. “My money’s more on the worm one,” he said.

Over the next few years, Medzhitov hopes to persuade sceptics with another experiment. It’s unlikely to end the debate, but positive results would bring many more people over to his way of thinking. And that might eventually lead to a revolution in the way we treat allergies.

Sitting on Cullen’s lab bench is a plastic box that houses a pair of mice. There are dozens more of these boxes in the basement of their building. Some of the mice are ordinary, but others are not: using genetic engineering techniques, Medzhitov’s team has removed the animals’ ability to make IgE. They can’t get allergies.

Medzhitov and Cullen will be observing these allergy-free mice for the next couple of years. The animals may be spared the misery of hay fever caused by the ragweed pollen that will inevitably drift into their box on currents of air. But Medzhitov predicts they will be worse off for it. Unable to fight the pollen and other allergens, they will let these toxic molecules pass into their bodies, where they will damage organs and tissues.

“It’s never been done before, so we don’t know what the consequences will be,” says Medzhitov. But if his theory is right, the experiment will reveal the invisible shield that allergies provide us.

Even if the experiment works out just as he predicts, Medzhitov doesn’t think his ideas about allergies will win out as quickly as his ideas about toll-like receptors. The idea that allergic reactions are bad is ingrained in the minds of physicians.“There’s going to be more inertia,” he said.

But understanding the purpose of allergies could lead to dramatic changes in how they’re treated. “One implication of our view is that any attempt to completely block allergic defences would be a bad idea,” he said. Instead, allergists should be learning why a minority of people turn a protective response into a hypersensitive one. “It’s the same as with pain,” said Medzhitov. “No pain at all is deadly; normal pain is good; too much pain is bad.”

For now, however, Medzhitov would just be happy to get people to stop seeing allergies as a disease, despite the misery they cause. “You’re sneezing to protect yourself. The fact that you don’t like the sneezing, that’s tough luck,” he said, with a slight shrug. “Evolution doesn’t care how you feel.”

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The remarkable story behind the first man without a beating heart

The oldest Neanderthal DNA ever found could revolutionize our knowledge of human evolution

$
0
0

neanderthal altamura man

The calcite-encrusted skeleton of an ancient human, still embedded in rock deep inside a cave in Italy, has yielded the oldest Neanderthal DNA ever found.

These molecules, which could be up to 170,000 years old, could one day help yield the most complete picture yet of Neanderthal life, researchers say.

Although modern humans are the only remaining human lineage, many others once lived on Earth. The closest extinct relatives of modern humans were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. Recent findings revealed that Neanderthals interbred with ancestors of today's Europeans when modern humans began spreading out of Africa — 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone living outside Africa today is Neanderthal in origin. [Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor]

In 1993, scientists found an extraordinarily intact skeleton of an ancient human amidst the stalactites and stalagmites of the limestone cave of Lamalunga, near Altamura in southern Italy — a discovery they said had the potential to reveal new clues about Neanderthals.

"The Altamura man represents the most complete skeleton of a single nonmodern human ever found," study co-author Fabio Di Vincenzo, a paleoanthropologist at Sapienza University of Rome, told Live Science. "Almost all the bony elements are preserved and undamaged."

The Altamura skeleton bears a number of Neanderthal traits, particularly in the face and the back of the skull. However, it also possesses features that usually aren't seen in Neanderthals — for instance, its brow ridges were even more massive than those of Neanderthals. These differences made it difficult to tell which human lineage the Altamura man might have belonged to. Moreover, the Altamura skeleton remains partially embedded in rock, making it difficult to analyze.

Now, new research shows that DNA from a piece of the skeleton's right shoulder blade suggests the Altamura fossil was a Neanderthal. The shape of this piece of bone also looks Neanderthal, the researchers said.

Neanderthal

In addition, the scientists dated the skeleton to about 130,000 to 170,000 years old. This makes it the oldest Neanderthal from which DNA has ever been extracted. (These bones are not the oldest known Neanderthal fossils — the oldest ones ever found are about 200,000 years old. This isn't the oldest DNA ever extracted from a human, either; that accolade goes to 400,000-year-old DNA collected from relatives of Neanderthals.)

The bone is so old that its DNA is too degraded for the researchers to sequence the fossil's genome — at least with current technology. However, they noted that next-generation DNA-sequencing technologies might be capable of such a task, which "could provide important results on the Neanderthal genome," study co-author David Caramelli, a molecular anthropologist at the University of Florence in Italy, told Live Science.

Whereas previous fragmentary fossils of different Neanderthals provided a partial picture of what life was like for Neanderthals, the Altamura skeleton could help paint a more complete portrait of a Neanderthal — for instance, it could reveal more details about Neanderthals' genetics, anatomy, ecology and lifestyle, the researchers said.

"We have a nearly complete human fossil skeleton to describe and study in detail. It is a dream," Di Vincenzo said. "His morphology offers a rare glimpse on the earliest phase of the evolutionary history of Neanderthals and on one of the most crucial events in human evolution. He can help us better understand when — and, in particular, how — Neanderthals evolved."

The scientists detailed their findings online March 21 in the Journal of Human Evolution.

Follow us @livescienceFacebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2015 LiveScience, a Purch company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

SEE ALSO: Here's what happened when Neanderthals and ancient humans hooked up 80,000 years ago

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Archaeologists Made A 'Once In A Lifetime' Discovery In Jerusalem

The US military will exhume the remains of hundreds of 'unknown' Marines who died in the Pearl Harbor attack

$
0
0

pearl harbor damage

The remains of as many as 388 "unknown" US military members who died when the USS Oklahoma was sunk during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor will be exhumed in Hawaii in an effort to identify them, the Department of Defense said on Tuesday.

The remains of the sailors and Marines will be taken from a cemetery in Hawaii to a laboratory where they will be analyzed using modern forensic tools and techniques, including DNA testing, the Pentagon said in a statement.

Service members who are identified will be returned to their families for burial with full military honors.

"While not all families will receive an individual identification, we will strive to provide resolution to as many families as possible," Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work said in the statement.

There has been a series of identification efforts in the decades since the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which took 2,403 lives and drew the US into World War II.

The Oklahoma sank when it was hit by torpedoes during the assault, the Pentagon said. A total of 429 sailors and Marines were killed.pearl harbor then and nowIn the years immediately after the attack, 35 crew members were identified and buried. During salvage operations from 1942 to 1944, the remaining service members' remains were removed from the ship and interred as "unknowns" in cemeteries in Hawaii.

In 1947, remains in those cemeteries were disinterred, but requests to attempt to identify them based on dental records were disapproved.

By 1950, all unidentified remains from the USS Oklahoma were reinterred at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, in Hawaii, the department said. The new effort aims to disinter 61 caskets at 45 gravesites.

The Defense Department laboratory in Hawaii disinterred one casket in 2003 and was able to identify five servicemen based on historical evidence provided by a Pearl Harbor survivor.

(Editing by Daniel Wallis and Peter Cooney)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how much sex happy couples have every month

Scientists have a pretty good idea how life on Earth began 4 billion years ago

$
0
0

It’s one of the most profound questions of all - how did life on Earth begin? With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Georgia Tech biochemist Nicholas Hud and a team at the Center for Chemical Evolution (CCE) are working to chip away at the question. They are homing in on how chain-like chemicals called polymers first came together and evolved three-and-a-half to four billion years ago.

Video courtesy of National Science Foundation 

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Milwaukee will pay $6.5 million to a man wrongly convicted of murder

$
0
0

Chaunte OttMILWAUKEE (Reuters) - A man, who spent 13 years in prison before DNA tests exonerated him of the murder of a teenage runaway, will receive $6.5 million from Milwaukee under an agreement approved on Tuesday unanimously by city lawmakers.

Chaunte Ott, 41, was wrongly accused of killing 16-year-old Jessica Payne in Milwaukee in 1995, authorities said, adding they now believe Payne was the victim of a serial killer who died in prison.

"We're appreciative that the case reached a fair resolution and that Mr. Ott can move on with his life," Ott's attorney Jon Loevy said.

Ott was convicted in 1996 of first-degree homicide and sentenced to life in prison after two men testified they were with him when he raped Payne and slashed her throat after trying to rob her, court documents showed.

In 2002, DNA tests requested by the Wisconsin Innocence Project showed that Ott did not rape Payne, according to court documents.

Ott was freed from prison in 2009 after the state dropped its case against him and an appeals court ordered a new trial, according to court records. He sued the city the same year, contending that Milwaukee police detectives had framed him.

Authorities believe Payne was murdered by convicted serial killer Walter Ellis. DNA linked Ellis to Payne's death, but he was never tried for killing her. Ellis, who died in 2013, was serving life in prison for strangling seven women in Milwaukee.

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

SEE ALSO: Exonerated man is suing Northwestern for $40 million for allegedly sending him to prison for 15 years to free another convict

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to supercharge your iPhone in only 5 minutes

Chinese scientists just admitted to tweaking the genes of human embryos for the first time in history

$
0
0

cas9 dna rna editing

A group of Chinese scientists just reported that they modified the genome of human embryos, something that has never been done in the history of the world, according to a report in Nature News

A recent biotech discovery — one that has been called the biggest biotech discovery of the century — showed how scientists might be able to modify a human genome when that genome was still just in an embryo.

This could change not only the genetic material of a person, but could also change the DNA they pass on, removing "bad" genetic codes (and potentially adding "good" ones) and taking an active hand in evolution.

Concerned scientists published an argument that no one should edit the human genome in this way until we better understood the consequences after a report uncovered rumors that Chinese scientists were already working on using this technology.

But this new paper, published April 18 in the journal Protein and Cell by a Chinese group led by gene-function researcher Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University, shows that work has already been done, and Nature News spoke to a Chinese source that said at least four different groups are "pursuing gene editing in human embryos."

Specifically, the team tried to modify a gene in a non-viable embryo that would have been responsible for a deadly blood disorder. But they noted in the study that they encountered serious challenges, suggesting there are still significant hurdles before clinical use becomes a reality.

CRISPR, the technology that makes all this possible, can find bad sections of DNA and cut them and even replace them with DNA that doesn't code for deadly diseases, but it can also make unwanted substitutions. Its level of accuracy is still very low.

Huang's group successfully introduced the DNA they wanted in only "a fraction" of the 28 embryos that had been "successfully spliced" (they tried 86 embryos at the start and tested 54 of the 71 that survived the procedure). They also found a "surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations," according to Nature News.

Huang told Nature News that they stopped then because they knew that if they were do this work medically, that success rate would need to be closer to 100%.

Our understanding of CRISPR needs to significantly develop before we get there, but this is a new technology that's changing rapidly.

Even though the Chinese team worked with non-viable embryos, embryos that cannot result in a live birth, some say that editing the human genome and changing the DNA of an embryo is ethically questionable, because it could lead to more uses of this technology in humans. Changing the DNA of viable embryos could have unpredictable results for future generations, and some researchers want us to understand this better before putting it into practice.

Still, many researchers think this technology (most don't think it's ready to be used yet) could be invaluable. It could eliminate genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and cystic fibrosis, all devastating illnesses caused by genes that could theoretically be removed. 

Others fear that once we can do this accurately, it will inevitably be used to create designer humans with specific desired traits. After all, even though this research is considered questionable now, it is still actively being experimented with.

Huang told Nature News that both Nature and Science journals rejected his paper on embryo editing, "in part because of ethical objections." Neither journal commented to Nature News on that statement.

Huang plans on trying to improve the accuracy of CRISPR in animal models for now.

But CRISPR is reportedly quite easy to use, according to scientists who previously argued against doing this research in embryos now, meaning that it's incredibly likely these experiments will continue.

Join the conversation about this story »

This is the game-changing technology that's just been used to genetically modify a human embryo

$
0
0

ultrasound baby sonogram

Researchers from China have just published a paper showing how they've edited the genome of a human embryo, to try to block a gene that causes a rare blood disease. 

The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something we've always thought of as Gattaca-style science fiction. But this new development, published in the journal Cell & Protein, shows that while many challenges remain before this becomes routine (the Chinese team encountered serious problems while working with non-viable embryos), genetically modified humans may be far closer than many like to think.

The Chinese scientists used a fascinating new technology called CRISPR to do it.

Jennifer Doudna, a Berkeley biologist who co-discovered CRISPR, was so concerned about this technology being used on humans that in January she called on American scientists to pause research before it's irreversible. But with research like the Chinese study just published, and others already being carried out, it may be almost too late.

"Most of the public," Doudna told MIT Tech Review's Antonio Regalado, "does not appreciate what is coming."

Where the science is now

CRISP Monkeys genetically modified

The key to gene editing that Doudna helped discover three years ago is CRISPR-Cas9, a technology from the natural world that she and Emmanuelle Charpentier harnessed and that is now already in wide use. Regalado describes CRISPR as a tool that allows biologists to basically "search-and-replace" components of DNA, meaning they can rewrite specific segments of something's genetic code.

Don't want the code that's related to a particular disease? This will allow us to rewrite it.

That can't be done with perfect accuracy yet: CRISPR currently successfully deletes target code 40% of the time and switches it out correctly about 20% of the time. It can make other unwanted changes too, meaning that now, it's largely unreliable and inconsistent. But researchers expect these rates to improve.

Still, it's early — the Chinese team had a much higher error rate than would be acceptable for actual medical use.

Despite these imperfections, CRISPR has already been used in livestock like cows and pigs and even in monkeys, which showed last year for the first time that targeted genetic editing could be done successfully in primates. Livestock have been engineered to be healthier, while in the monkeys, researchers modified genes that regulate metabolism, immune cell development, and stem cells.

That being said, the human embryo tests performed in China were hit and miss. According to the Nature News article

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. 

Many of the embryos also had genetic insertions in unwanted places, the Nature News article said.

The video below explains how CRISPR works:

Researchers are developing ways to use CRISPR to treat genetic conditions like sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and are also experimenting with genetic changes that could eliminate viruses like HIV. Even though viruses aren't genetic diseases, certain gene edits have been shown to prevent the virus from spreading to new cells and to "destroy inactive HIV residing in the human genome by altering critical viral genes," according to a look at genome surgery in MIT Tech Review. Experts even think these types of changes could eventually help treat complex conditions with genetic components like schizophrenia and autism, according to MIT Tech Review— though we still need to understand those conditions better.

The Chinese study aimed to insert the correct version of the gene that codes for defective blood cells in beta-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disease.

Designer babies

dna double helix genetics

Growing an edited embryo into a full fledged adult human wouldn't just remove a health problem — or, in the dystopian future model, create an augmented human. It would leave lasting changes that are passed on, something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.

"It makes you ask if humans should be exercising that kind of power," Doudna told Regalado, of MIT Technology Review. "If germ line editing is conducted in humans, that is changing human evolution."

Of course, some would say that that's the point, that humanity needs to be improved and that we should hasten the process. Regalado quotes bioethicist John Harris, who says "the human genome is not perfect," and "it's ethically imperative to positively support this technology."

Most researchers told Regalado that they wouldn't do embryo enhancements other than the ones that would remove disease, at least not at this point — but he also says that many stopped answering his questions after he'd asked about the existing research in that area.

Luckily, in the Chinese study, the researchers used embryos that weren't viable and would never be able to grow to term. The mutliple problems they stumbled up on in their testing also indicates it's going to be a while before these worries come to pass. 

So how close are we?

Some skeptical researchers told Regalado that even though "we know it's possible," it's still far too error prone to be considered practical to use in editing human embryos for now. This seems to be what the new study found. 

But in the Chinese lab, and others, progress is being made.

Researchers told Regalado that using CRISPR right now, they probably have to edit 20 embryos to make a monkey in the way that they want. Guoping Feng, a researcher at MIT's McGovern Institute (who made the video explaining CRISPR above), thinks that making a genetically edited human — either without disease or augmented — will be possible in 10 to 20 years.

Other researchers said going around the embryo stage could be the key. Editing the DNA of stem cells using CRISPR, then growing and replicating those cell into human egg or sperm cells, could bypass some of the embryo problems.

While this technically isn't possible yet, scientists "think they will soon be able" to turn a stem cell into sperm or egg, according to MIT Tech Review. Those new sperm and egg cells could be joined to create an embryo with the corrected or enhanced genes.

Even though the technology required to turn stem cells into those egg and sperm cells is still being developed, stem cell expert Jonathan Tilly at Northeastern told Regalado that his lab is already trying to edit egg cells with CRISPR. Once CRISPR can be used more stably and once the stem cell puzzle is solved — no small thing — that'll be the key, Tilly suggested, to actually growing an animal from a stem cell.

Tilly said that once this is done with animals, it'll prove that it can be done, but at that point you'd want to think long and hard before doing such a thing with humans.

"'Can you do it?' is one thing," he said, but then you ask "'Would you do it? Why would you want to do it? What is the purpose?' As scientists we want to know if it's feasible, but then we get into the bigger questions, and it's not a science question, it's a society question."

SEE ALSO: The biggest biotech discovery of the century is about to change medicine forever

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do


These are the countries where it's 'legal' to edit human embryos (hint: the US is one)

$
0
0

baby embryo egg sperm fetus pregnancy

News broke on Wednesday that a team of Chinese scientists had edited the genes of human embryos for the first time ever, confirming long-swirling rumors that such ethically dicey experiments were underway and flouting recent calls to put a stop to them.

Around the world, the laws governing what's allowed when it comes to "editing the human germ line," the technical name for what the Chinese scientists did, are a mixed bag. That means that while the technology still has a long way to go before people can actually make genetically engineered babies, in many places there are no laws preventing a scary "Gattaca scenario," where designer babies become routine — just some loose guidelines and a variable sense of ethics. 

Despite researchers urging caution — stating that this work needs to be "on hold pending a broader societal discussion of the scientific and ethical issues surrounding such use," an inventor of the technology that made it possible told National Geographic— it seems that while the Chinese scientists ruffled some feathers, they did not actually break any laws.

In a study published in 2014, Motoko Araki and Tetsuya Ishii of Hokkaido University in Japan looked at the rules in 39 countries and found that 29 of them (lighter pink on the map below) had a ban on such research. Of those, 25 (darker pink) had legally binding bans; the other four, including China, had guidelines banning the practice but not exactly enforceable laws. In the remaining 10 countries (dark gray on the map), the rules were "ambiguous." They set aside the US as a special case: no outright ban, but rules that are very restrictive. (The FDA and NIH have, at least for now, a moratorium on such research.)

gene editing map crispr ethics

The fact that the first published research showing the editing of an embryonic genome — an attempt to alter the DNA that would be passed on to future generations — happened in a country with an ostensible ban on such research should raise some alarm.

The complex regulatory environment that's clear on the map above means there are plenty of loopholes — even in the countries that have tried to anticipate the coming wave of ethically questionable experimentation.

Was this research allowed?

In China, for example, the Guidelines on Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies say, according to Araki and Ishii, that "using human egg plasma and nuclear transfer technology for the purpose of reproduction, and manipulation of the genes in human gametes, zygotes or embryos for the purpose of reproduction are prohibited."

There are at least two possible reasons the Chinese team, led by Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University, might have been able to undertake their research anyway.

Sperm Bank Frozen Fertility Clinic First, and probably most importantly, their experiment was in non-viable embryos: eggs that had been fertilized by two sperm and so would never develop into humans, genetically modified or otherwise.

The Guidelines on Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies forbid "the manipulation of the genes in... embryos for the purpose of reproduction." But these experiments were certainly for research, not for reproduction, which was not even a possibility with such embryos.

Second, as Araki and Ishii's study makes clear, there is an important distinction between legal bans and guidelines.

A report from the Medical Research Council in the UK notes that China's regulations governing research ethics "consist mostly of guidelines promulgated by the relevant ministries, which could be considered to constitute 'soft law'" and that "the sanctions for breaching ministry guidelines are often unclear." Researchers violating the Guidelines on Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies in particular have lost their licenses, the report notes, which would make it illegal for them to continue their research. But such enforcement appears to be inconsistent, as it's left largely up to local governments.

Around the world

Internationally, most of these rules were drafted before the technology that made the recent Chinese experiment possible became widely available, and that technology is still too inaccurate and unpredictable to be used clinically on viable embryos that could become genetically modified humans.

As for the rest of the world, there's a patchwork of laws addressing the possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos. In Russia, the Japanese researchers note, "germline gene modification for reproduction is not considered" by the relevant legislation. In Canada and many European countries, the bans are quite strict; in Austria, for example, "any intervention involving the human germline is prohibited."

Along with China, India, Ireland, and Japan also have guidelines that are not legally binding; those countries, as well as the US, "might permit it," the researchers predict, once such techniques become safer.

Already, in China, a source told Nature News, "at least four groups... are pursuing gene editing in human embryos."

PREVIOUSLY: Chinese scientists just admitted to tweaking the genes of human embryos for the first time in history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This one ingredient is making a lot of Americans fat

This Mexican teen was forcibly sent to the US after being mistaken for a Texas woman's abducted daughter

$
0
0

14-year-old Alondra Luna Nunez was reunited with her family after a bizarre case of mistaken identity.

Nunez was originally sent to Houston to live with a woman who claimed she was her daughter and had been taken illegally by her father to live in Mexico years earlier. 

Produced by Jason Gaines. Video courtesy of Associated Press.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

It's 'very possible' innocent people were executed because the FBI messed up evidence

$
0
0

fbi agents

The FBI recently dropped the bombshell that most of the experts in a major forensic unit gave flawed testimony about microscopic hair evidence during a 25-year period — potentially leading to wrongful executions.

Before mitochondrial DNA analysis on hair became routine in 2000, the FBI relied on hair microscopy — or using a microscope to compare hair found at the scene of a crime to samples taken from a suspect. The FBI found that all but two of 28 agent/analysts in the unit provided false testimony or prepared erroneous lab reports that were later submitted to courts.

Analysts gave testimony in 268 cases and made "erroneous statements" in 257 of those cases, according to the review. Defendants in at least 35 of these cases got the death penalty, and 33 of those cases contained errors. Five of them, however, died of natural causes while on death row, and nine of them have already been executed.

"It’s very possible that some of these people who were executed were wrongly executed," Paul Cates, communications director of the Innocence Project, told Business Insider.

The 33 inmates on death row now could have been wrongfully convicted as well, Cates noted.

The Innocence Project is helping the Department of Justice locate these cases and notify the defendants. So far, 74 out of 329, or 22%, of DNA exonerations have involved faulty microscopic hair analysis, according to Cates.

The scientific basis for hair microscopy is questionable at best. Courts have recognized the practice to be "highly unreliable, according to a 2009 report in the National Academy of Sciences. In one particularly shocking case, two FBI forensic experts confused a human hair with a dog hair, according to the Innocence Project. The defendant, Santae Tribble, served 28 years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him.

"When it comes down to it, it’s one human being eyeballing one hair compared to another hair," Lindsay Herf, post-conviction project counsel at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), told Business Insider. The NACDL is also assisting the DOJ with its ongoing investigation. 

No national standards exist for what constitutes a match either, Herf explained. One expert might find 18 similarities between hair found at the crime and the suspect's while another might require 24 before calling the two samples "a match."

As of March 2015, the FBI had reviewed about 500 of 3,000 cases.

"[T]he Department and the FBI are committed to ensuring that affected defendants are notified of past errors and that justice is done in every instance," executive assistant director of the FBI's science and technology branch Amy Hess said in a statement.

Join the conversation about this story »

Warnings about a controversial new technique to alter human embryos are being ignored

$
0
0

dnaNEW YORK (Reuters) - Biologists in China reported carrying out the first experiment to alter the DNA of human embryos, igniting an outcry from scientists who warn against altering the human genome in a way that could last for generations.

The study from China appeared last weekend in an obscure online journal called Protein & Cell. In an interview published on Wednesday on the news site of the journal Nature, lead author Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou said both Nature and Science had rejected the paper, partly for ethical reasons.

"There have been persistent rumors" of this kind of research taking place in China, said Edward Lanphier, chief executive of California-based Sangamo BioSciences Inc and part of a group of who called last month for a global moratorium on such experiments. "This paper takes it out of the hypothetical and into the real."

The controversial technique is called CRISPR/Cas9, and represents a biological version of a word-processing program's "find and replace" function. Scientists introduce enzymes that first bind to a mutated gene, such as one associated with disease, and then replace or repair it.

At least half a dozen experiments have been planned or are underway using CRISPR on human eggs or embryos to correct genetic defects such as those causing cystic fibrosis or the BRCA1 breast-cancer gene, the MIT magazine Technology Review recently reported.

Scientists warn that altering the DNA of human sperm, eggs, or embryos could produce unknown effects on future generations, since the changes are passed on to offspring. They distinguish this type of so-called germline engineering from that which alters the DNA of non-reproductive cells to repair diseased genes.

"It is too soon to apply these technologies to the human germ line, the inherited DNA, in a clinical setting," said MIT biologist Rudolf Jaenisch, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Huang's experiments provide evidence of what can go wrong with CRISPR. His team experimented on 86 one-cell human embryos, they reported, all from fertility clinics and, because of chromosomal defects, unable to develop into a baby. Their target was a gene called HBB, which can cause the blood disease beta-thalassemia.

About a dozen embryos did not even survive the genome-editing, the scientists reported.

Of the surviving embryos, many showed "off-target" effects, they reported, meaning genes other than HBB were altered. Other embryos suffered "untoward mutations." Only a handful of embryos contained the healthy DNA meant to repair the defective HBB genes.

"If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100 percent" on target in terms of fixing only the target gene, Huang told Nature News, which reported that four or more groups in China are doing similar experiments. "That's why we stopped."

Science and Nature said their policy is not to comment on publication decisions. Springer, which publishes Protein & Cell and is owned by European private equity firm BC Partners, did not immediately reply to questions about its decision to publish Huang's paper.

Lanphier fears that the call for a moratorium on editing the human germline is being ignored. "This is the first of what may be many papers" on human germline engineering, he said.

 

(Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Andrew Hay)

SEE ALSO: These are the countries where it's 'legal' to edit human embryos (hint: the US is one)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 9 facts about the brain that will blow your mind

Genes determine your risk for disease, but they're not a death sentence

$
0
0

Your genes are one of many factors that contribute to developing certain diseases. Yes, Huntington's disease counters that notion — if you have a gene variant, you are pretty much guaranteed to have it — but for the most part, we have the ability to control our own destiny in a positive or negative way. 

For instance, if we take a look at the risk factors that affect our chances of developing coronary heart disease, we see that in addition to genetics, factors like stress, obesity, smoking, and air pollution contribute to its development. 

For those with the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene variant, there is a 16% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease. Yet, for those who smoke, the risk rises to 24%. Likewise, for those who are obese, the risk soars to 69% from the original baseline.

Check out the full infographic from Mosaic below.

Genetics: Risk or Destiny, Mosaic 

 

 

SEE ALSO: Celebrity trainer Tony Horton says this is his absolute favorite type of workout

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how much sex happy couples have every month

Viewing all 463 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>