Category Archives: Genetics

Scottish wildcat, bee and pearl at risk of ‘severe genetic problems’ – HeraldScotland

February 3, 2020 medical

SCIENTISTS have developed a world-first method to help understand and conserve genetic diversity in some of Scotlands most iconic wild flora and fauna.

The golden eagle, Scottish wildcat and red squirrel are among 25 species assessed in a new report published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), which also includes plantlife such as heather, the Scottish bluebell and the Scots pine.

Conserving the genetic diversity the differences among individuals due to variation in their DNA of plants, animals and wild species is among the targets developed by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to encourage countries around the world to work together to reduce the rate of loss of nature.

But while there are strategies in place to assess and report on genetic diversity in agriculture, horticulture and forestry, there is a gap when it comes to wild species.

Researchers identified a list of target species of particular importance for Scotland and developed a genetic scorecard for each, assessing their genetic diversity and any associated risks.

The species were chosen for their conservation or cultural value, importance for food and medicines or because they provide crucial ecosystem services such as carbon storage.

Four of the 26 assessed species Scottish wildcat, ash, great yellow bumblebee and freshwater pearl mussel were classed as being at risk of severe genetic problems as a result of factors including non-native species, disease, habitat loss and pollution.

However, eight species were classed as being at moderate genetic risk and 14 were classed as being at negligible risk.

Conservation action is underway to address these threats, for example through the Saving Wildcats project and Biodiversity Challenge Fund cash recently announced to enhance key freshwater pearl mussel populations across Scotland.

The new method for assessing genetic diversity will help further target long-term conservation strategies and address the international target.

The report is a result of collaboration from 43 experts from 18 organisations, and follows the formal recognition last year of SNHs Beinn Eighe National Nature Reserve as the UKs first area designated for genetic conservation, reflecting the importance of its ancient Caledonian pine forest.

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: Our natural environment is central to our national identity, thanks in no small part to the many unique, varied and iconic wild species that are native to Scotland.

A pivotal part of conserving some of our most at-risk biodiversity is to build a full picture of the pressures and issues that our wild species are facing including the state of their genetic diversity.

Work around conserving genetic diversity is an area where Scotland is genuinely ground-breaking. In Beinn Eighe, we were the first nation in the UK to have a site recognised for genetic conservation.

That is why this report, which provides us with new and powerful insight into the state of the genetic diversity amongst wild species is so important, and I look forward to it playing an important role driving further progress to safeguard Scotlands biodiversity.

David OBrien, SNH Biodiversity Evidence and Reporting Manager, said: Often when we talk about biodiversity the focus is on species and ecosystems, but genetic diversity is also essential for nature to be resilient in the face of pressures such as climate change, and its great that Scotland is leading the way in this field.

For the first time, this report sets out a clear scorecard method for assessing the genetic diversity of wild species and applies this to some of our most important plants, animals and birds.

Not only does it fill a major gap in addressing the international target for genetic biodiversity conservation but importantly it can be expanded to cover many more species, and adapted for use in any country in the world.

Professor Pete Hollingsworth, Director of Science at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (RBGE), said: Genetic diversity is the raw material that allows species to evolve and adapt to a changing environment and thus conserving genetic diversity is an important way of helping nature to help itself.

Genetic diversity is key to species adapting to changing climates, to new diseases or other pressures they may face. At a time of increasing pressures and threats, maintaining genetic diversity maximises options and opportunities for species to persist and survive.

Dr Rob Ogden, Head of Conservation Genetics at the University of Edinburgh and co-author of the scorecard report, added: The scorecard is designed as an affordable, practical tool that allows every country to assess its wildlife genetic diversity; what we measure in Scotland can now be compared around the world.

The report has been endorsed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and submitted to The Convention on Biological Diversity ahead of the Kunming summit, which will see 196 countries meet in China to adopt a new global framework to safeguard nature and its contributions to human wellbeing. The meeting aims to set the course for biodiversity conservation for the next ten years and the decades to come.

Genetics

Why do we stutter? Scientists study genetic causes and treatment options – WLNS

February 3, 2020 medical

About 3 million Americans are affected by stuttering, a speech disorder that involves sounds that are repeated or held for too long.

Scientists are learning about what causes people to stutter, and genes tell a big part of the story.

Researchers are still working to fully understand what causes stuttering, but they do know that it often runs in families. Its 15 times more likely that a sibling of a person who stutters will stutter than a random person in the population, explains Dr. Dennis Drayna, an National Institutes of Health expert on the genetics of communication disorders

Stuttering affects about 1 in 20 children with many able to outgrow the disorder on their own or with the help of a professional called a speech-language pathologist.

However, about 2025% of children who stutter will continue into adulthood, says Drayna. This condition is known as persistent developmental stuttering. Overall, about 1% of adults stutter, and its much more common in men than women.

By studying families with multiple people who stutter, Drayna has identified several genes that can cause stuttering. Mutations in these genes have now been found in people around the world who stutter and these studies suggest that genes likely play a role for many people who stutter.

All the genes identified so far are involved intracellular trafficking, a process inside the cell that helps direct things in the cell to their proper locations. Problems with intracellular trafficking have recently been recognized in other neurological disorders, like Parkinsons and Alzheimers disease. But more research is needed to understand how it impacts speech and stuttering.

For those who stutter, communicating with others can be difficult which affects relationships, self-esteem, and quality of life as well as leading them to avoid talking. Stuttering often gets worse if theyre feeling tired or anxious.

People with stuttering know exactly what they want to say. Theyre just unable to say it at the rate they would like, Drayna said.

Its common for people who stutter to be able to speak without stuttering when in a low-stress environment, according to NIH. For example, they may have no problem speaking fluently with a pet, baby, or singing in a group.

Scientists are also using brain imaging scans to better understand brain activity in people who stutter which may help show why some children outgrow stuttering as well as hopefully lead to better treatments one day.

For now, treatment for stuttering involves therapy, aimed at making speech smoother or avoiding issues that worsen stuttering, with a speech-language pathologist.

Does your child stutter? Six tips for parents

Genetics

Precision Medicine in Primary Care: Bespoke. Genetic and Genomic. And Maybe Not Ready. – Managed Care magazine

February 3, 2020 medical

Say precision medicine and people think of personalized cancer treatment. But this innovation has already begun to revolutionize primary care tooeven though the jury is still out, in many cases, on whether it makes a clear difference in outcomes.

Just what precision (alias personalized) medicine is isnt always spelled out precisely. But usually it is discussed as prevention or treatment that takes into account individual differences among patients, most often genetic differences. Some people expand the concept to consider individual differences in environment and lifestyle.

In adult primary care, two subsets of precision medicine have attracted the most attention recently: predictive genetic testing and pharmacogenomics.

Predictive genetic testing is what it sounds like: A genetic test that forecasts a persons chance of getting a disease. The term is also applied to germline genetic tests that provide some indication of the predisposition being passed down to offspring. Proponents see predictive genetic testing for certain inherited conditions as a way to unearth risks in people who can then get early treatment or take preventive steps to head off serious and possibly costly conditions. Actor Angelina Jolie put BRCA testing as a predictive genetic test into the public consciousness with her announcement in 2013 that she underwent a double mastectomy after testing positive for a BRCA mutation.

Pharmacogenomics studies show how a persons genes can affect his or her response to medications. Ideally, pharmacogenomic (sometimes called pharmacogenetic) results could end some of the trial and error with drugs and help providers and patients choose the most effective drug right off the bat.

Where federal dollars are concerned, precision medicine has already stepped out of the cancer box. In 2015, President Barack Obama committed $215 million to precision medicine research, including a genomic study of more than a million Americans to extend precision medicine from cancer to other diseases. A year later, the 21st Century Cures Act expanded this funding to $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.

Aided by a multibillion-dollar genomic testing industry, some providers have started testing precision medicine beyond oncology. In 2018, Geisinger Health System in central Pennsylvania made a splash by announcing that it would add DNA sequencing to routine primary care. A small number of other hospitals are starting to monetize these tests. In August 2019, STAT reported that a handful of academic medical centers, including Brigham and Womens Hospital and the Mayo Clinic, have started elective genome sequencing clinics for generally healthy patients willing to pay hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars in cash for a genetic workup.

Skeptics see carts preceding horses; solid evidence that routine genetic testing results in better outcomes is lacking. As one genome-sequencing clinic leader conceded in the STAT article, such testing can lead to expensive follow-up testing. Not surprisingly, payers have been reluctant to cover sequencing tests of various kinds.

Regulators have breathed life into some kinds of testing and poured cold water on others. Last year, 23andMe was the first testing company to get FDA approval to market a direct-to-consumer genetic test for three (of the more than 1,000 known) BRCA gene mutations linked to increased risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. But in April 2019, the agency issued a warning letter to Inova Health System in Northern Virginia to stop marketing pharmacogenomics tests it claimed could predict patients responses to antidepressants, opioids, and other drugs. The FDA said it was unaware of data to support these claims.

A survey published two years ago in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics found that clopidogrel, a blood thinner, was the medication most commonly tested for a druggene interaction, followed by simvastatin and warfarin. Nearly 40 academic medical centers and community health systems testing ways to implement pharmacogenomics in clinical practice were surveyed.

Some evidence suggests that traditional screening methods may not identify everyone at risk for certain inherited conditions. In a study published in Science three years ago, researchers at Geisinger and Regeneron (which manufactures Praluent, a drug used to treat familial hypercholesterolemia) found that only about one in four people carrying the familial hypercholesterolemia gene variant met the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria (widely used diagnostic criteria) for genetic testing. Still, evidence for the clinical utility of many pharmacogenomic or predictive genetic tests is pretty scanty at this point.

Right now, for the average primary care provider, there are a relatively limited number of situations where pharmacogenomic testing is clearly beneficial to outcomes in a way thats dramatic, says Greg Feero, MD, a faculty member at Maine Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency and a former senior advisor to the director of the NIHs genomics research division.

For predictive genetic testing, there are a few notable exceptionshereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemiaif certain criteria such as family history of the condition are met. The CDC has designated genomics applications for these conditions as Tier 1, the highest tier on its evidence-based ranking system of genomic applications by their potential for a positive public health impact.

In a 2017 editorial published in American Family Physician, Vinay Prasad, MD, and Adam Obley, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University said that rigorous meta-analyses havent yet shown that genotype-guided dosing for warfarin, clopidogrel, or antidepressant selection is better than usual care. Prasad is a well-known critic of what he sees as the proliferation of medical treatments and therapies without good evidence behind them. We need to know on a broad scale that [these tests] improve outcomes for patients, and dont just reassure physicians theyre choosing a better drug, Obley tells Managed Care.

Prasad and Obley also argued in their editorial that without further proof of improved outcomes, routine genetic testing could just fuel more inappropriate care. Guidelines carve out clear boundaries for who should get tested because there are scenarios in which the risks and benefits of preventive measures arent known, they said, noting that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises against genetic testing for BRCA mutations in women without a family history of BRCA-related cancers.

A small pilot study suggests that genetic testing in primary care may not lead to improved outcomes. In 2017, The Annals of Internal Medicine published the first randomized trial of whole-genome sequencing in primary care. Gene variants were found in 20% of the participants whose genomes were sequenced. But six months later none of them had improved outcomes.

The test produces lots of information, says Obley, who wasnt involved in the study. But its not clear that any patient was managed differently in a way that improved their health.

Without evidence supporting the clinical utility of routine pharmacogenomics or genetic testing, most payers are unwilling to cover them. Some exceptions exist, such as employers that offer routine genetic testing as an employee benefit. In a blog post published in 2018, Color Genomics touted Visa and the German software company SAP as customers. Medicare covers pharmacogenomic testing of two gene variants that predict warfarin responsiveness for beneficiaries enrolled in a randomized, controlled clinical study that meets certain standards.

The high cost of genetic testing has been cited as another reason insurance coverage is limited, but payers may not budge even as testing gets cheaper. The cost of doing the test itself has been declining quite rapidly, says Kathryn Phillips, a health economics professor at University of CaliforniaSan Francisco who researches personalized medicine access, quality, and reimbursement. She has disclosed in recent studies that she is a paid consultant for Illumina, a DNA sequencing company. But she says its hardand its going to take longerto figure out where to use genetics in primary care in healthy populations, and [for insurers] to pay for it.

The current state of evidence and bleak reimbursement prospects havent deterred early adopters from embracing precision medicine in primary care. For Megan Mahoney, MD, chief of general primary care at Stanford Medicine, precision medicine begins with going after data on key determinants of healthnot just genes, but also environmental factors, social determinants, and health behaviors.

In a yearlong pilot of 50 patientsmore than half of whom were at risk for cardiovascular conditionsStanford Medicine care teams created personalized care plans to prevent and manage chronic illness. The plans leveraged data from several sources, including genetic-risk assessments and genetic testing for the three CDC Tier 1 conditions and remote monitoring devices.

Before the pilot, which ended in 2018, Stanford did not offer routine genetic testing in primary care. So far, that hasnt changed. But Stanford is making the genetic-risk assessment tested in the pilot available to its primary care providers, hoping it can increase screening rates for the Tier 1 conditions, says Mahoney. Studies show that many primary care providers are uncomfortable evaluating and addressing genetic risk. Five patients in the pilot discovered through the genetic risk screening that theyre at high risk for breast cancer, demonstrating that this type of tool can help to identify previously unknown risks.

Post-pilot, Stanford is also offering patients with poorly controlled blood pressure connection to a Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure cuff and health coaching as part of a larger study. Genetic testing has dominated the discussion of precision medicine in primary care, but Stanfords experience shows that it isnt the only way to tailor preventive care to individual patients needs.

Even if clinical utility is ultimately shown, folding precision medicine into primary care will likely follow the path of many new developments in medicine: There will be some early adopters, but most practices will have a wait-and-see and depends-on-the-reimbursement attitude.

Educating doctors on how to interpret, use, and communicate genetic testing results to patients will be one of the biggest hurdles. Theyll be learning on the job, says Susanne Haga, associate professor of internal medicine at Duke Universitys medical school, who leads educational activities in genetics and genomics for the Duke Center for Applied Genomics. An obstacle course of other possible barriers awaits: the limited number of certified genetic counselors, concerns about privacy and genetic discrimination, and the potential for the lack of diversity in genomic data sets to exacerbate disparities in care.

Still, Haga sees the convergence of three factors that will force the health care systems hand and usher in precision medicine in primary care: patients increasing ability to influence decisions about their care, the declining cost of testing, and a critical mass of people, numbering in the millions, who will have had their DNA sequenced in genome programs such as Geisingers or several national genomics research initiatives.

Its coming, she says, one way or another.

Originally posted here:
Precision Medicine in Primary Care: Bespoke. Genetic and Genomic. And Maybe Not Ready. - Managed Care magazine

Genetics

Israel Prize awarded to Hebrew University Professor Dani Zamir for his agricultural research – Haaretz

February 2, 2020 medical

The Israel Prize for agricultural research and environmental science is being awarded to Prof. Dani Zamir, the Education Ministry announced Sunday. Zamir is professor emeritus in genetics at the Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment at Hebrew University.

Zamirs fields of research deal with improving plants and developing innovative tools for genetic cultivation. For example, he developed a group of cultured tomatoes that contain a DNA string from species of wild tomatoes that make them resistant to dryness, salt and various diseases.

Twenty years ago he founded the company AB Seeds, which together with the universitys Yissum technology transfer company developed one of the leading species of tomatoes grown in California. Ten years ago, he and his student, Yaniv Semel, set up a company that applies computational methods to genetic cultivation. Zamir has won numerous research grants, including a particularly prestigious grant from the European Research Council

The prize committee called Zamir a leader in his field who is internationally recognized and involved in international cooperative ventures. He has contributed and continues to contribute to Israeli and global agriculture.

For 35 years, Zamir taught the basic genetics course in the agriculture department, along with advanced courses. Hebrew University noted that all the students in the agriculture department, from 1982 to today (except the years he was on sabbatical) studied genetics with Prof. Zamir.

Continued here:
Israel Prize awarded to Hebrew University Professor Dani Zamir for his agricultural research - Haaretz

Genetics

The Key to Your Perfect Diet Could Be Hiding in Your DNA – The Spoon

February 2, 2020 medical

Our DNA contains the code that dictates how our body works including, apparently, information about which foods we should (and shouldnt) be eating.

Dr. Sherry Zhang is on a mission to help individuals eat healthier based on their unique genetic code. Thats why she created GenoPalate, the DNA-driven personalized nutrition company, and also why we cant wait to welcome her onstage at Customize, our food personalization summit in NYC next month.

Before she hits the stage, we had the chance to ask Dr. Zhang a few questions about DNA vs. microbiome-based nutrition, data privacy and the biggest challenges towards harnessing the power of personal biology.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Tell us a little bit about what GenoPalate does.GenoPalate is a personalized nutrition platform. We believe that food and nutrition play a powerful role in our health and wellbeing. Our mission is to empower people to optimize their health through personalized nutrition insights.

The GenoPalate platform uses the latest research in metabolic health, genetics and nutrition to provide personalized insights to encourage healthier eating behaviors. From a simple saliva sample, our proprietary technology uses DNA to make personalized recommendations on the ideal intake of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals. We make this actionable for our customers by providing a comprehensive list of foods that best suit their geneticnutritional requirements.

Whats the difference between DNA-driven and microbiome-driven diet recommendations?This is a hard question as we are NOT comparing apples to apples. When we test DNA (like ancestry or 23andMe and Genopalate) we are testing the blueprint of a humans genome. The human genome is a 3.2 billion-letter genetic code that we all were born with. Within our genetic code or DNA we have many variants that define not only our food preferences but how our bodies will respond to or metabolise specific nutrients. For example there are variants that predict tolerance to lactose or caffeine metabolism.

Another factor that may contribute to how our bodies respond to nutrients, are the bacterial, viral and fungal floras that live in our gut. These are known as our microbiomes. Microbiome companies are testing the RNA and DNA of the gut bacteria NOT of our human genetic code.This is an important distinction. Microbiome research, while promising, is still in its infancy. Many studies are still being conducted to understand how nutritional interventions impact the microbiome and how they impact on human health.

How do you navigate concerns around data privacy?We at GenoPalate take extra care to keep customers genetic and personal information private and safe as we understand how important it is for us to deliver the best possible practices for customers data privacy. We implement de-identification along with encryption of each individuals data to ensure secure storage and complete anonymous separation fromgenetic and personal information. Only automated GenoPalate product services have access to all of the information to fulfill each order and deliver each product to customers. As a business, we do not sell, lease or rent users personal information to third-parties without the users consent. Customers genetic information may be used by GenoPalates product development team to enhance services to customers.

In this case, customers data will be de-identified and aggregated before analysis to preserve anonymity. We will continue investing measures that ensure responsible management of user data including transparency, consumer education, proper consenting and data security and privacy design and more by following the principles recommended by organizations such as Forum of Future Privacy.

Whats one of the biggest challenges facing personalized nutrition?I think one of the biggest challenges facing personalized nutrition is the question of how to create a contextual user experience in order to continuously drive a persons success in healthy eating.

Human genetics is known to explain approximately 30 percent of the variations we have observed in our phenotypic traits such as weight and body mass distribution, glucose and lipids profiles, blood pressure and inflammatory biometrics. We also know that approximately 40 percent of the health phenotype outcomes are also driven by an individuals daily lifestyle behaviors.

What we yet need to tackle as a scientific community is to establish an effective way of harnessing the power of personal biology in the context of that persons living environment. GenoPalate is up for the challenge and is seeking forward-thinking organizations to partner in our quest for helping people to reach and maintain their optimal health and prevent chronic diseases.

Watch Dr. Zhang dive deeper into the world of DNA-driven food recommendations at Customize on February 27th! Use discount code SPOON15 and Grab your tickets here before theyre gone.

Genetics

How to Argue with a Racist by Adam Rutherford review were all related – The Guardian

February 1, 2020 medical

Every Nazi had Jewish ancestors. Discovering this fact alone is worth the price of Adam Rutherfords engaging and enlightening new book. A geneticist by training, Rutherford is an accomplished writer who knows how to weave a fascinating tale from scientific data as he explains that our shared ancestry is far more recent than the small group of a pan-Africa species that left the continent 70,000 years ago.

It is a popular myth that there are more people alive today than have ever died. The current global population is about 7.8 billion and increasing at the rate of 220,000 each day. It has been estimated that there have been some 108 billion members of our species, Homo sapiens. The dead may outnumber the living by almost 100 billion, but as Rutherford points out, there are more people alive as you read this than on any other day in history.

Race does existprecisely because it isasocial construct, andracism isrealbecause peopleenact it

Assuming that generations are separated by 25 years, then in every generation back through time, the number of ancestors you have doubles: two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so on. Going back just 1,000 years generates more than a trillion ancestors 1,099,511,627,776. This staggering number is nearly 10 times greater than all of the people who have ever lived. The solution to this apparent paradox is simple: family trees coalesce and collapse in on themselves as we go back in time, with many individuals occupying multiple positions.

The last common ancestor of all people with longstanding European ancestries lived only 600 years ago, in 1400. This long lost ancestor appears on every familys tree. If you hoped for a royal connection then you wont be disappointed: as Rutherford explains, anyone alive today with a British ancestral lineage is almost certainly descended from Edward III, and all of his regal ancestors, including William the Conqueror. It may sound far-fetched, but so did six degrees of separation the idea that everyone on the planet is six, or fewer, social connections away from each other.

Remarkably, we only need to travel back 1,000 years to reach a special moment in time dubbed the genetic isopoint. Every person alive at this point in 10th-century Europe who left descendants is an ancestor of all Europeans alive today. This mind-numbing concept is a mathematical and genetic certainty that is far removed from the ancestry, family trees and identity that we learn from such TV programmes as Who Do You Think You Are?. Logically, there must also be a global isopoint, a time when the entire population of the Earth were the ancestors of everyone alive today. There is, and it was just 3,400 years ago.

How ancestry and family trees actually work shows the concept of racial purity to be pure fantasy. For humans, Rutherford explains, there are no purebloods, only mongrels enriched by the blood of multitudes. So, like the rest of us, every white supremacist and racist has African, Indian, Chinese, Native American, Middle Eastern and Indigenous Australian ancestors to name but a few.

Human genetics is the study of the similarities and differences between people and populations. Although the idea that genetic variations between traditional racial groupings have any meaningful influence on behaviour or innate abilities has been widely discredited, papers are still being published in peer-reviewed journals in which the genetics for complex human traits is sliced and diced along racial lines.

Attempts to justify racism have long been rooted in science, more accurately pseudoscience. Rutherford understands that racism is a social phenomenon, but rightly believes that when science is warped, misrepresented or abused to justify hatred and prejudice it must be challenged. He focuses on what genetics says about skin colour, ancestry, intelligence, sporting prowess, and about so-called racial purity and superiority. And he attempts to equip the reader with the scientific tools necessary to tackle questions concerning race, genes and ancestry, as he explains what DNA does and does not reveal about the concept of race.

No one has ever agreed how many races there are, nor what their essential features might be. The emergence of the pseudoscientific approach to human taxonomy that relies on physical traits such as skin colour or physiognomy coincided with the empire building of European powers. Unsurprisingly, the invention of race occurred in an era of exploration, exploitation and plunder.

Skin colour may be the most obvious difference between people but it has little to do with the total amount of similarity or difference between individuals and between populations. If we accept that people are born with different innate capabilities and potential, then how these abilities cluster within and between populations has more to do with history and culture than DNA and biology. Studies reveal that genetic differences between populations do not account for differences in academic, intellectual, musical or sporting performance between those populations.

So-called racial differences are literally just skin deep: genetics and human evolutionary history do not support the traditional or colloquial concepts of race. As a result, Rutherford argues, we are prone to say race doesnt exist, or race is just a social construct. However, race does exist precisely because it is a social construct, and racism is real because people enact it. One has to admire his desire to challenge Jonathan Swifts dictum: Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.

How to Argue with a Racist: History, Science, Race and Reality by Adam Rutherford is published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson (RRP 12.99). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com. Free UK p&p over 15.

More:
How to Argue with a Racist by Adam Rutherford review were all related - The Guardian

Genetics

How to Argue with a Racist smashes race myths that plague society – New Scientist News

February 1, 2020 medical

By Layal Liverpool

Guy Smallman/Getty

I am black and mixed-race, but it remains unclear to me whether these are social identities or biological classifications. Luckily, I can turn to Adam Rutherfords latest book, How to Argue with aRacist, to reveal the current scientific understanding of race, ancestry and genetics. It also tells us how to argue effectively against the idea that certain populations of people are biologically inferior.

From the beginning, Rutherford is clear that although he uses the term race frequently, he does so only because the word is widely used: it isnt scientifically valid, yet it exists so must be addressed. Race is a social construct. This does not mean it is invalid or unimportant, writes Rutherford.

How to Argue with a Racists strongest suit is to encourage a general conversation about race, informed by the latest science on the reality and origins of racism. Researching ethnicity has often been career death, but Rutherford says scientists shouldnt shy away from the field. Nor should writers, to judge by his mission.

For many, race is a cry for identity and belonging. In 2018, when groups of neo-Nazis in the US chugged milk to supposedly demonstrate their superior, genetically encoded ability toprocess lactose, they were trying to assert their white identity, writes Rutherford.

He rather undermines such anassertion by revealing that thegene mutations that enable lactose processing arent unique to people of European descent. They also exist today in Kazakhs, Ethiopians, Tutsi, Khoisan and in many places where dairy farming took off as part of agriculture.

Chugging milk is a theatrical gesture, but as Rutherford points out, we increasingly turn to ancestry and genetic testing toreaffirm our human tendency to seek meaning and identity.

I can relate to this. My surname, Liverpool, comes from an ancestor on my fathers side, forcibly shipped from West Africa to the Caribbean via Liverpool, UK, during the transatlantic slave trade. But as Rutherford points out, the number of children produced by sex between enslaved peoples, and between the enslaved and their owners, makes it virtually impossible for a genetic test to establish an African country of origin for the descendants of slaves.

Instead of arguing against thelogic of marrying identity toancestry, Rutherford elegantly uses a bit of mathematics to showhow our whole way of thinking about ancestry is wrong.

He assumes generational time is 25 years and that the number ofancestors for each person in every generation has doubled. Sowe each have two parents, fourgrandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. In 500years, or 20 generations, that is 1,048,576 ancestors. Go back 1000 years, and each of us has more than a trillion ancestors: 10 times more people than ever existed.

The notion of a family tree isnt the most scientifically accurate metaphor, he writes, because trees only ever branch, but family trees contain loops, with the same person appearing at multiple positions in the tree, for example, as a result of first cousins having children. Understanding that we are all more closely related to one another than we think is a pretty strong argument against racism.

Is any of this enough to convince hard-liners? Maybe not.As Rutherford writes: Thecommercial genetic testsremain scientifically unconvincing. Regardless, the utility of consumer genetic testing is now a major and significant part of white supremacy discourse.

But in many ways How to Argue with a Racist isnt really about arguing with hard-liners. Its target is the surprisingly prevalent set of racist beliefs, from men of certain groups having larger or smaller penises than average to people from different racial groups being more or less intelligent than average. The way we generally speak about races does not align with what we know about those innate differences between people and populations, says Rutherford.

For example, the largest study of penis size, including more than 15,000 men, found no evidence that the organs length or girth correlates with any particular population, racial category or ethnicity, while intelligence is a complex trait influenced by a score of genes and their interaction with our environment.

Rutherford hunts widely to account for the persistence of suchracist ideas. But in the end, hefaces down the biggest issue atthe core of many of these raciststereotypes: is race truly abiological classification?We are constantly told that it is asocial construct, but scientists muddy the waters by appearing tocontradict this as they perhaps carelessly mention both race and ethnicity in their research papers.

Rutherford is clear that the majority of geneticists think genetic differences between ethnic groups are meaningless interms of behaviour or innateabilities. But he also acknowledges the contradiction because scientific papers are still published in which genes for complex traits like intelligence seem stratified along racial lines.

Race science is pseudoscience, but genetics and evolutionary research are inextricably tied up with race, and are often used by racists to justify themselves. Rutherford accepts that the field ofhuman genetics has a dark history, founded by racists in a time of racism, but also argues that genetics has demonstrated the scientific falsity of race.

He writes that scientists reluctance to express views concerning the politics that mightemerge from human genetics is a position perhaps worth reconsidering. After all, he argues, those who misuse science for ideological ends show no such restraint, and embrace modern tech to spread their messages.

Terrace Global Announces Genetics Supply Agreement With Apollo Green for Acquisition of Genetics and Importation Into the European Union – Business…

February 1, 2020 medical

TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Terrace Global Inc. (Terrace Global or the Company) (TSXV:TRCE) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a genetics supply agreement (the Genetics Supply Agreement) with Apollo Green Inc. (Apollo Green) whereby the parties have entered into an exclusive relationship with respect to the acquisition and importation of high-THC genetics for the Companys medical cannabis operations in Portugal.

Terrace Global has commenced the process to acquire the requisite starting materials for the first phase of its greenhouse facilities in Portugal, which will be comprised of approximately 65,000 square feet of greenhouse facilities, a 5,000 square feet of E.U. GMP processing and drying facility and a 3,300 square feet administrative building.

Pursuant to the Genetics Supply Agreement, Terrace Global will be acquiring the following genetics: Chem Stallion (15-25% THC, 0.5-0.1% CBD), Twisted Grape (15-25% THC, 0.5-0.1% CBD) and Apollo Skunk (15-25% THC, 0.5-0.1% CBD). These genetics will add to Terrace Globals existing inventory of high CBD genetics which were acquired from Colorado and used in its outdoor cultivation in Uruguay.

We are pleased to be working with Apollo Green to develop our genetics inventory with a view to focusing on high-THC strains that we expect to be well received by the European Union medical cannabis market participants. Apollo Green has an extensive library of genetics that include a diverse set of market leading strains and cross-breeds, commented Francisco Ortiz von Bismarck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Being able to source these genetics is an important milestone in the development of European operations. Without quality genetics, there is no pathway to success in the burgeoning E.U. medical cannabis industry.

Apollo Green has been accumulating an extensive library of high-THC genetics and has benefited from its relationship with Ed Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal is a Global Advisor to Apollo Green and is a leading cannabis horticulture authority, author, educator, social activist and legalization pioneer.

Terrace Global is building a world-class cultivation facility in one of the most attractive countries from a regulatory and climate perspective. We will be working closely with the Company to see how these genetics perform by leveraging our extensive cultivation expertise, commented Tyler LeBlanc, Chief Executive Officer of Apollo Green. This is a meaningful partnership for us as we seek to grow our genetics and plantlet business globally. Terrace Global is the ideal partner given its extensive experience and international footprint in Uruguay, Portugal and Spain.

The Genetics Supply Agreement is subject to various conditions precedent, including the issuance of the applicable export and import permits from the regulatory authorities in Canada and Portugal.

About Terrace Global

Terrace Global is a multi-country operator (MCO) led by experienced cannabis entrepreneurs focused on the development and acquisition of international cannabis assets. Terrace Globals focus is on federally legal jurisdictions with existing domestic demand, low cost inputs and approved for exportation. Terrace Globals existing asset platform consists of: (1) a 33.75% indirect equity interest in one of the currently two recreational cannabis operations in Uruguay; (2) 100% of Oransur, S.A., a Uruguayan company producing high CBD hemp in Uruguay; (3) 100% of Terra Nova Produo e Comercializao de Produtos Natuis e Farmacuticos, Lda, a Portuguese company with a pre-license issued by INFARMED for the cultivation, importation, and exportation of medical cannabis in Portugal; and (4) 100% of Pharmabinoide S.L., a Spanish company producing and commercializing hemp in Spain. MariMed Inc. (OTCQX:MRMD), a multi-state cannabis operator in the U.S., dedicated to improving the health and wellness of people through the use of cannabinoids and cannabis products, owns approximately 6% of Terrace Global.

About Apollo Green

Apollo Green was among the first wave of Canadian businesses to submit an application to Health Canada for a cannabis cultivation and sales license. In July 2019, Apollo Green was granted three licenses for standard cultivation, standard processing and federal medical sales. Apollo Green currently supplies premium genetic solutions and superior plantlets to Cannabis producers globally, specializing in reducing risk, space, costs, and time to its B2B customers, in a state of the art fully operational facility about 20 minutes east of downtown Ottawa.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This news release contains certain forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements about the Companys future plans and intentions. Wherever possible, words such as may, will, should, could, expect, plan, intend, anticipate, believe, estimate, predict or potential or the negative or other variations of these words, or similar words or phrases, have been used to identify these forward-looking statements. These statements reflect managements current beliefs and are based on information currently available to management as at the date hereof.

Forward-looking statements involve significant risk, uncertainties and assumptions. Many factors could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results discussed or implied in the forward-looking statements. These factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Although the forward-looking statements contained in this news release are based upon what management believes to be reasonable assumptions, the Company cannot assure readers that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by law.

Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Read the original here:
Terrace Global Announces Genetics Supply Agreement With Apollo Green for Acquisition of Genetics and Importation Into the European Union - Business...

Genetics

How Genetic Testing with 23andMe Can Improve Your Health – Yahoo Finance

February 1, 2020 medical

Survey finds 23andMe Health + Ancestry results motivate customers to make positive lifestyle changes.

NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- At-home DNA testing service 23andMe is more than just a tool to discover ancestry - it also offers insight into how genes can impact overall health and wellness. 23andMe offers a wealth of reports that provide genetic health information that can help customers be more proactive about their health. Recently, 23andMe Genetics Trends Expert, Madeline Lynch, and customer Michelle Martinez, teamed with YourUpdateTV to discuss.

A video accompanying this announcement is available at: https://youtu.be/VAKAywAd4VY

A recent survey of 23andMe's Health + Ancestry Service customers found that more than three-quarters reported that after receiving their personalized genetic reports they made at least one positive change in their health behavior. Designed by 23andMe and M/A/R/C Research, researchers asked 23andMe Health + Ancestry customers about the overall impact of their 23andMe experience, regardless of their results.

51 percent of respondents reporting they've set future goals to be healthier. Changes included eating healthier, getting more sleep, and exercising more, among others. Of those who responded to the survey:

For more information and to get started, visit 23andMe.com

Madeline Lynch: Madeline Lynch is the Genetics Trends Expert at 23andMe. She serves as a subject matter expert and company spokesperson for media engagements, the analyst community, online communities, and the general public at large. Her responsibilities on the customer care team include providing input on prioritization and resolution of customer-facing issues and working directly with cross-functional teams to influence and support development of new and existing communications materials and messaging from the perspective of the customer. She holds a BA from University of California, Davis.

About Michelle Martinez: Michelle Martinez is a 51-year-old lab assistant from Arlington, Texas. Michelle was inspired to order a 23andMe Health + Ancestry kit to help prepare for any potential genetic health risks, due to several serious health risks running in her family. When she opened her Genetic Weight wellness report, she saw that she is genetically predisposed to weigh less than average. She thought, "I've been denying my genetics and just falling into bad habits. I'm not being my best self." That report, along with the knowledge of lifestyle and environmental factors that affect one's health, inspired Michelle to make better lifestyle decisions like eating healthier. She has since lost more than 50 pounds and gained confidence in being in her own skin. She believes that her weight loss journey is one of patience and acceptance with and of herself -- no matter her size.

About 23andMe: 23andMe, Inc. is the leading consumer genetics and research company. Founded in 2006, the mission of the company is to help people access, understand and benefit from the human genome. The company was named by TIME as a "Genius Company" in 2018 and featured as Fast Company's #2 Most Innovative Health Company in 2018. 23andMe has millions of customers worldwide, with more than 80 percent of customers consented to participate in research. 23andMe, Inc. is located in Sunnyvale, CA. More information is available at http://www.23andMe.com.

About YourUpdateTV: YourUpdateTV is a social media video portal for organizations to share their content, produced by award-winning video communications firm, D S Simon Media (http://www.dssimon.com). It includes separate channels for Health and Wellness, Lifestyle, Media and Entertainment, Money and Finance, Social Responsibility, Sports and Technology.

SOURCE 23andMe

Genetics

Top geneticist should resign over his teams laboratory fraud – The Guardian

February 1, 2020 medical

A row over scientific fraud at the highest level of British academia has led to calls for one of the countrys leading geneticists and highest-paid university chiefs to leave his posts.

David Latchman, professor of genetics at University College London and master of Birkbeck, University of London a post that earns him 380,000 a year has angered senior academics by presiding over a laboratory that published fraudulent research, mostly on genetics and heart disease, for more than a decade. The number of fabricated results and the length of time over which the deception took place made the case one of the worst instances of research fraud uncovered in a British university.

Latchman blames junior lab staff for falsifying data, and two investigations at UCL, the first in 2015, found no evidence that he intended to commit, or was aware of, the fraud. A disciplinary hearing in 2018 concluded that there were insufficient grounds for dismissal or for any formal action against him.

But the investigations were deeply critical of Latchman. Both found that his failure to run the lab properly, and his position as author on many of the doctored papers, amounted to recklessness, and upheld an allegation of research misconduct against him.

The outcome of the case has riled a number of senior academics, who believe Latchman has taken responsibility neither for the fraud nor for the waste of grant money that happened on his watch. Many of the fraudulent papers covered projects funded by the British Heart Foundation.

He should be fired by UCL because he was leading a lab that published systematically fraudulent science

Professor John Hardy, a fellow of the Royal Society at UCL, and winner of the $3m Breakthrough prize for his work on Alzheimers, told the Observer he wanted to go public because he was angry about the situation. Some minion carries the can. This is how it is, all the time. The powerful get away with it, he said.

As the senior author, he has to take responsibility, Hardy said. He should be fired from UCL and Birkbeck. He should be fired by UCL because he was leading a lab that published systematically fraudulent science. And at Birkbeck, he sets the tone. He shouldnt be in that position.

Before opening its formal investigations, UCL convened two screening panels to review 60 papers from Latchmans lab dating back to 1997. Fraud had been alleged in all of them by a pseudonymous whistleblower, Clare Francis. One panel, chaired by Hardy, looked at a subset of the papers and found that images had been doctored in eight of them. The panel could only examine fraud where the images had been altered, he said.

In one paper, six images had been flipped or copied and relabelled as new. In a statement retracting the study, one of the authors, Anastasis Stephanou, now at the European University in Cyprus, said he regretted the inappropriate figure manipulations of which the co-authors were completely unaware. Dr Stephanou did not respond to a request for comment.

The second screening panel uncovered six more fraudulent papers. In one, an image of rat tissue appeared to be passed off as human. Another paper contained clear evidence of cloning, where parts of an image are copied and pasted.

The formal investigations that followed upheld allegations of misconduct against Latchman and two other scientists, whose names were redacted from the final reports that UCL released under the Freedom of Information Act last year. One member of Hardys panel was Professor Gudrun Moore, a geneticist at UCL. She said: The outcome of this has shown, at the very least, that he is a very poor leader of a scientific team, and under his leadership, paper after paper was published with incorrect data.

I was surprised that he did not resign. Things go wrong in science all the time but the facts and the data have to be sacred. If we are not telling our young researchers that, what are we telling them? That if you dont get the outcome you want, you can just make it up?

Two senior scientists familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were dismayed at its outcome. One said Latchman should consider standing down a move that would send a clear signal to the scientific community about the seriousness of research fraud. They said scientists around the world had asked what UCL and Birkbeck planned to do about the papers well before 2014, a situation that was very embarrassing.Another said: I expected him to come out and say I am deeply sorry, I behaved inappropriately, and at least admit that he had some responsibility.

In a statement, Birkbeck said the investigations had nothing to do with Professor Latchmans leadership of the college.

Latchman no longer has a lab and has stopped supervising research, but he is still a part-time professor of human genetics at UCL, and master of Birkbeck. To date, six of the papers have been withdrawn and two more corrected. PubPeer, an online forum used by academics, has raised questions over dozens of studies carried out by Latchmans group.

The investigations led the Wellcome Trust to tell Latchman he would need to provide evidence of research-integrity training before applying for personal funding in future. Professor Sir Nilesh Samani, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said he was extremely concerned by the findings of UCLs investigations, adding that the British Heart Foundation was no longer funding the scientists involved. The charity is reviewing the need for further action.

A spokesman for Latchman said the academic had rejected the misconduct claim at the UCL disciplinary hearing, and that his lab management was not inadequate. The fraud was, he went on, confined to one sub-group of the lab and would have been apparent only to reviewers actively looking for such deception.

There have been many instances of frauds by individual lab workers, but in no cases has this led to the head of the laboratory having to resign, except in an instance where they were directly involved in the fraud themselves, the statement said. Attempts by individual academics at UCL to promote allegations of fraudulent behaviour against the hearings conclusions are unbecoming and a breach of confidentiality and good practice.

See the rest here:
Top geneticist should resign over his teams laboratory fraud - The Guardian